Bombay High Court
Vijay Ambadas Pawar vs Amrut Vasantrao Deshmukh on 22 September, 2015
Bench: A.I.S. Cheema
cwp1190.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1190 OF 2015
Vijay s/o Ambadas Pawar,
Age-36 years, Occu:Agriculture,
r/o-Vadigudri, Tq-Ambad,
Dist-Jalna.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) Amrut Vasantrao Deshmukh,
Age-Major, Occu:Service,
R/o-C/o-Phaltan Police Station,
Phaltan, Tq. & Dist-Satara,
2) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Gondi Police Station,
Gondi, Tq-Ambad,
Dist-Jalna.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.Santosh S. Jadhavar Advocate for
Petitioners.
Mrs.M.S. Patni, A.P.P. for Respondent No.2.
...
CORAM: A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.
DATE : 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2015
ORAL ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner
cwp1190.15
and learned A.P.P. for State finally. The learned
counsel submits that the Petitioner has filed
complaint because of which Crime No.121 of 2002
was registered. After completing the
investigation, Respondent No.1 who was
Investigating Officer, filed charge-sheet against
the accused in the said crime. It is stated that
after recording evidence of some of the witnesses,
it was revealed that Respondent No.1 had not
discharged his duties in accordance with law and
has favoured the accused persons during
investigation. Consequently, Petitioner filed
Application Exhibit 204/D seeking to add
Respondent No.1 as accused in the said case. The
J.M.F.C. after hearing the parties, passed an
order rejecting the application on the ground that
sanction to prosecute the Investigating Officer
would be necessary.
2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that under the provisions of Section 319
cwp1190.15
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was
necessary to proceed against the Investigating
Officer.
3. Sub-Section (1) of Section 319 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:
"319. Power to proceed against other persons
appearing to be guilty of offence.- (1) Where,
in the course of any inquiry into, or trial
of, an offence, it appears from the evidence
that any person not being the accused has
committed any offence for which such person
could be tried together with the accused, the
Court may proceed against such person for the
offence which he appears to have committed."
4. It is clear that the above Section
relates to a situation where while trial is
proceeding and in the trial of the concerned
offence it appears to the Court that there is yet
another person who is not the accused but who
appears to have committed offence for which that
cwp1190.15
person can be tried together with the existing
accused, the Court can proceed against such
person. If the allegation is that the
Investigating Officer in the course of
investigation helped the accused persons
unlawfully, it would be another offence, if any,
for which separate trial would be necessary. Under
Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure they
would not be persons accused of the same or
different offence committed in the course of the
same transaction. The provisions of Section 319 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be of help
in the facts of the present matter.
5. As such, I do not find any reason to
entertain the present Writ Petition. The points
raised by the Petitioner are kept open. Writ
Petition stands disposed of.
[A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.]
asb/SEP15
