The Bombay High Court has emphasized that the transfer of a case from the police to a special agency cannot be based solely on the investigation being deemed "not appealing" to a concerned party. The division bench of Justices N. W. Sambre and N. R. Borkar stated that burdening an investigating agency is unwarranted, highlighting the agency's obligation to comprehensively assess the prosecution's case from various perspectives to ensure a fair and expeditious inquiry.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, Bhagyashree Mote, approached the Bombay High Court seeking the transfer of the investigation into the death of her sister, Madhu. The deceased, Madhu, a widow of Sanket Markande, passed away on March 12, 2023, a month after her husband's demise due to liver cirrhosis. Madhu's demise prompted two complaints from her father and Bhagyashree Mote, claiming that she had been subjected to cruelty by certain individuals who were hindering her succession to her husband's estate.
The complaints alleged that Damodar Subhash Maratkar, Mangesh (son of Subhash Maratkar), and Dada Subhash Maratkar were not permitting Madhu to inherit her deceased husband's estate. Furthermore, it was contended that Madhu, who was engaged in cake making and training, had sustained substantial injury marks on her face, suggesting foul play before her demise. The petitioner sought the transfer of the investigation to either the State CID or CBI, citing bias and malafide on the part of the current investigating authorities.
Contentions by the Parties:
The contentions put forth by the petitioner included the assertion that Madhu's death was homicidal, supported by the presence of injuries on her body. Additionally, the petitioner claimed that the investigating officer had failed to consider crucial aspects of the case, and the overall investigation was marred by bias. It was argued that the investigation should be transferred to a specialized agency to ensure a fair and credible inquiry.
In response, the investigating officer, supported by the State of Maharashtra, argued that the investigation conducted so far had been comprehensive. They highlighted the examination of witnesses, including Archana, who was with Madhu at the time of her death. The investigating officer contended that the facial injuries sustained by Madhu were a result of the circumstances surrounding her collapse, such as attempts to administer water and the subsequent transportation to the hospital.
Observations by the Court:
The Court highlighed the importance of exercising this power sparingly and exclusively in exceptional circumstances. Drawing from legal precedents, the Court cited the judgment in the matter of Royden Harold Buthello & Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors, highlighting the need for a fair trial and the extraordinary nature of the power to transfer investigations.
The Court further referred to the Apex Court's observations in the matter of Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India. It emphasized that the power to transfer investigations should only be invoked in situations where there is a reasonable apprehension about justice being compromised due to biased, shabby, or malafide investigation. The Court highlighted the exceptional nature of this power, emphasizing its sparing use and the need for extraordinary circumstances to justify its application.
In the specific case before the Court, the petitioner argued that dissatisfaction with the ongoing investigation was sufficient grounds for a transfer to either the State CID or CBI. However, the Court scrutinized the investigation papers and medical reports related to Madhu's death. It concluded that the investigating agency had conducted a comprehensive and unbiased inquiry, considering all aspects surrounding Madhu's demise.
The Court firmly rejected the petitioner's contention that a mere lack of appeal in the investigation to the concerned party justified a transfer.
Decision of the Court:
Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitioner's plea, affirming the credibility of the local police's ongoing investigation. The Court asserted that the investigating agency should not be burdened with the defense's case and must objectively assess the prosecution's case from all angles. Ultimately, the Court ruled that neither malafide intentions nor arbitrary conduct were apparent in the investigation, and there was no evidence supporting the claim of Madhu's homicidal death.
Case Title: Bhagyashree Mote vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justices Nitin W. Sambre and N. R. Borkar
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 3350 of 2023
Advocates of the Petitioner: Minal Chandnani, Zoheb Merchant, and J. S. Chandnani
Advocates of the Respondent: S. S. Kaushik
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://static.toiimg.com/thumb/resizemode-4,width-1280,height-720,msid-94384252/94384252.jpg
