Bombay High Court
Mahadeo S/O. Kondiba Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 3 February, 2021
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
(1) 906-criwp463-20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.463 OF 2020
Mahadeo S/o Kondiba Shinde
Age 64 years, Occ : Pensioner
R/o Rameshwar Road, Sautada
Tq.Patoda, Dist.Beed. .. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Department of Home Affairs
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2] The Superintendent of Police,
Beed.
3] The Police Inspector,
Shivaji Nagar Police Station,
Beed, Dist.Beed. .. RESPONDENTS
...
Shri G.R.Syed, Advocate for petitioner
Smt.R.P.Gaur, A.P.P. for respondents-State.
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 03.02.2021
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Heard. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned A.P.P.
waives service for the respondents-State. With the consent of both sides,
matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.
(2) 906-criwp463-20
2] Not satisfied with the investigation the informant approached this Court
by filing Criminal Writ Petition No.533/2019 seeking direction to the
investigating agency to carry out further investigation. By order dated
5/4/2019 this Court disposed of the Writ Petition with following
observations :
"3] Prayer is made for giving direction to
respondent, Investigating Agency and the State to make de-
novo investigation in Crime No.758 of 2018 registered with
Shivaji Nagar Police Station, District Beed. It appears that
the petitioner is not satisfied with the investigation made
and he wants to show that there is some more material
which needs to be collected in the matter. As after making
investigation, the Investigating Agency filed the charge
sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 306, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of
the IPC and the case is committed to the Court of Sessions,
the Trial Court/Sessions Court has ample powers and if the
Trial Court finds that some material needs to be brought on
record, it can take steps suo motu also. In other cases, the
investigating agency can request the Court for permission to
make further investigation of the matter and that recourse
also can be used by the present petitioner by applying
through the Prosecutor appointed in the said case."
3] Pursuant to these observations, the petitioner approached the trial
Court by filing application (Exh.26) counter signed by the A.P.P. seeking a
direction for further investigation.
4] By the impugned order the learned Assistant Sessions Judge rejected
the application primarily on the ground that the application was not filed by
the investigating agency.
(3) 906-criwp463-20
5] There is also a sentence appearing in the impugned order at the fag end
which reads thus :
"Unless and until complainant brings such
material before this Court, this Court is not in a position
to issue the direction to the police for re-investigation of
the case".
But conspicuously at no earlier place the learned Judge has made any
observation touching this aspect as to what was being sought to be brought on
record by the petitioner.
6] It is thus quite apparent that inspite of observations of this Court in
Criminal Writ Petition No.533/2019 the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has
erroneously rejected petitioner's application (Exh.26) for the sole reason that
the application was not coming from the investigating agency. The
observation is clearly erroneous and in utter disregard of the order of this
Court (supra) and is liable to be quashed and set aside.
7] The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set
aside. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge shall now decide the application
(Exh.26) afresh on its own merits and shall not reject it only on the ground
that it has not been filed by the investigating agency.
8] The Rule is made absolute in above terms.
[MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]
umg/
