Bombay High Court
Mohammad Yusuf Sheikh Mansab vs The State Of Maharashtra, ... on 3 October, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
crwp776.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Criminal Writ Petition No. 776 of 2015
Mohammad Yusuf Sheikh Mansab,
aged 48 years,
occupation - Advocate,
resident of Mohd. Ali Chowk,
Pinjar Gali, near Dargah,ig
first floor, Akola,
Tq. & Distt. Akola. ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Department of Home,
through its Principal Secretary,
Mumbai.
2. Director General of Police,
Mumbai.
3. Special Inspector General
of Police,
Amravati Range,
Amravati.
4. Superintendent of Police,
Akola, Distt. Akola.
5. Office of Asstt. Superintendent
of Police [Sub Divisional Police
Officer, "SDPO"], City Division,
Akola, Distt. Akola.
::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2016 00:55:35 :::
crwp776.15
2
6. The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station
Officer, Police Station,
Ramdaspeth,
Akola, Distt. Akola.
7. Deorao Chintaman Khanderao,
aged 46 years,
occupation - Police Inspector,
presently posted at Police
Station, Frezarpura,
Amravati, Distt. Amravati.
8. Shreeram Phoolsingh Rathod,
aged 58 years,
occupation - Retd. Police
Officer, resident of Banjara
Nagar, Kaulkhed Road,
Akola, Distt. Akola.
9. Sudhir Hiremath,
.....[deleted as per
Court's order dtd :
21-10-15]. ..... Respondents.
*****
Mr. P.W. Mirza, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Doifode, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent nos. 1 to
6.
Mr. S.S. Alaspurkar, Adv., for respondent no.7.
Mr. A.M. Tirukh, Adv., for respondent no.8.
*****
::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2016 00:55:35 :::
crwp776.15
3
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI
AND
A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Date : 03rd October, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT [Per A.S. Chandurkar, J.]:
01. Heard.
02. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner prays that the
investigation that has been conducted in Crime No. 109/09 with regard
to an accident that took place on 26th May, 2009 be transferred to
another independent agency in view of the fact that the investigation
has not been done in a fair and proper manner.
03. It is the case of the petitioner that on 26th May, 2009 when
he was riding his two-wheeler, he was hit by another vehicle, due to
which he had a fall and suffered injuries. He made an oral report on
the same day which was registered as Crime No. 109/09. According to
the petitioner, he was admitted in a hospital at Pune on 27th May,
2009 and was under treatment till 1st June, 2009.
crwp776.15
04. It is submitted by Shri P.W. Mirza, learned counsel for the
petitioner, that the investigation has been done in such a manner so as
to shield the actual culprits. In the Crime Details Form dated 30th
May, 2009 in column no.3 thereof, it was mentioned that the place of
occurrence was shown by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, in
the "AA" form that was prepared by the authorities, the name of one
"Deepak Ramkrushna Pohare" was shown as the driver of the
offending vehicle. However, in the subsequent "AA" Form dated 15th
February, 2010, the name of the driver of the vehicle was changed and
it was shown to be driven by one Ratnakar Rambhau Mankar.
According to the petitioner, on the basis of complaints made by the
him, the police authorities had conducted an enquiry in the matter and
as per the report submitted by the Asstt. Superintendent of Police, the
grievance made by the petitioner was found to be justified. On this
basis, it is submitted that as the investigation has been completed in
the aforesaid manner, it has resulted in shielding the actual accused,
causing prejudice to the petitioner. It is also submitted that on account
of these lapses, the claim filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been dismissed.
05. Shri S.S. Doifode, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the
crwp776.15
respondent nos. 1 to 6, relied upon the Affidavit-in-Reply and
submitted that in the enquiry proceedings that were held against
respondent nos. 7 and 8, it was found that they had not committed any
lapses while conducting the investigation and hence no further action
was called for. It was submitted that the spot of the accident was
shown by the petitioner himself and as it was the same spot where the
accident had occurred, no prejudice was caused to the petitioner. It
was, therefore, submitted that after due investigation, the matter was
placed before the learned Magistrate and the trial Court is now seized
of the matter.
06. Shri A. M. Tirukh, learned counsel for the respondent no.8,
submitted that on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner,
re-investigation was conducted by the authorities and it was found that
the spot of the incident as indicated in the report dated 30th May,
2009 was the actual spot of the accident. He submitted that despite
re-investigation, nothing factual has come on record that could cause
prejudice to the case of the petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that
the prayers made by the petitioner do not deserve to be granted.
07. Shri S.S. Alaspurkar, learned counsel appearing for the
crwp776.15
respondent no.7, submitted that the respondent no.7 has taken
prompt action on the basis of report lodged by the petitioner. The
respondent no.7 had, in fact, arrested the concerned accused and
taken all possible steps to conduct investigation in a fair manner.
08. Perusal of the Crime Details Form dated 30th May, 2009
indicates that the place of occurrence of the accident has been shown
by the petitioner. At page 23, the petitioner has filed the documents
relating to his admission at Dinanath Mangeshkar Hospital, Pune, on
27th May, 2009, which also indicates that he was discharged from the
said hospital on 1st June, 2009. Despite specific assertion in this
regard by the petitioner that he was at Pune at the relevant time, there
is no reply given to the aforesaid aspect by the respondents. Even if it
is assumed that the place of occurrence may be correct, the fact that it
has been shown that the petitioner has indicated the place of
occurrence on 30th May, 2009 is not supported by the documents on
record.
09. In so far as the form under Rule 227 AA of the Motor
Vehicles Rules is concerned, the entry at Item No. 7 shows the name of
one Deepak Ramkrushna Pohare as driver of the offending vehicle.
crwp776.15
This document is undated. At page 55 of the record, another AA form
dated 15th February, 2010 pertaining to the same accident is placed
on record and the name of one Ratnakar Rambhau Mankar is shown as
the driver of the said vehicle. On the basis of the complaints made by
the petitioner, Asstt. Police Superintendent held an enquiry and arrived
at a prima facie conclusion that the respondent no.8 had conducted
the investigation in such a manner that could have resulted in
prejudice to the case of the petitioner. In the reply filed on behalf of
respondent nos. 1 to 6, there is no comment on the report submitted
by the Asstt. Superintendent of Police or with regard to observations
made therein. Merely a statement has been made in para 32 of the
said reply that a Departmental Enquiry was held and no criminal action
was warranted on the basis of the conclusions in said enquiry report.
10. Considering the fact that the Asstt. Superintendent of Police
had prima facie found that the investigation was not conducted in a
proper manner, coupled with the lacunae as pointed out in recording
the Crime Details Form and presentation of two different AA Forms,
we find that it would be in the interests of justice if the investigation of
the present crime is transferred to another independent agency.
crwp776.15
11. In view of aforesaid, we direct that the investigation in
Crime No. 109/2009 shall stand transferred to the Local Crime Branch,
Akola, which shall conduct a fresh investigation in the crime and
thereafter proceed in accordance with law. The investigation shall be
completed by the Local Crime Branch within a period of four months
from today and its report be submitted to the Court of learned Fourth
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola. Till said period, the further
proceedings in S.C.C. No. 439 of 2010 shall remain stayed.
It is clarified that observations made in this order are only
while considering the prayer for transfer of investigation.
12. Petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
Judge Judge
-0-0-0-0-
|hedau|
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct
crwp776.15
copy of original signed Judgment/Order.
Uploaded by : R.B. Hedau, Uploaded on : 04th Oct. 2016
Pvt. Secretary.
-0-0-0-0-
crwp776.15
