1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.635 OF 2009 * Ajija Begum W/o Anwar Khan, Age 50 years, Occupation : Household, R/o Lane No.4, Indiranagar, Baijipura, Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary to Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2) Additional Directorate General, CID Crime, Maharashtra State, Pune. 3) Commissioner of Police Police Commissioner, Office, Mill Corner, Aurangabad. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. D.K. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. S.D. Kaldate, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondents 1 to 3. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & SHRIHARI P DAVARE,JJ. DATE: 4th AUGUST 2009 2 ORAL ORDER: 1) Heard. 2) The learned counsel Shri. Kulkarni submits that the police have not investigated the crime properly. The complaint filed by the petitioner Ajija Begum Anwar Khan, mother of the deceased Imran, filed a complaint on 22nd February 2009 with Jinsi police station, which according to the counsel, was treated as a missing report. After 4 days wife of the deceased namely Farhana Khan filed complaint on which police started investigation, completed the investigation and filed charge sheet against two sons of the present petitioner. The petitioner submits that there is material to show that some other persons including some relatives are involved in the murder of her son and there is some supporting material which the petitioner is in possession to disclose. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the crime requires fresh investigation by an independent agency than the police agency. 3 3) In the facts of the case we find that the petitioner may first resort to statutory remedies available to her as provided in the Criminal Procedure Code. The counsel submits that even applications were filed by the petitioner to the Commissioner, Home Ministry and other dignitaries. 4) We find that the petitioner, if desires, may resort to the procedure established under the Code of Criminal Procedure by filing a complaint to the Magistrate. At this stage no interference is called for. 5) The writ petition stands dismissed. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ crwp.635.09