Cri.W.P. 784/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 784 OF 2010 Yogandhara w/o. Yogesh Niturkar, Age 27 yrs., Occu. Household, R/o. Gangagolai Latur, At present Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. C.J. Sabnis, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D.V. Tele, APP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. A.T. Kanawade, h/f. Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 to 10. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATED : 27th April, 2011. ORAL ORDER : 1. The petitioner is a complainant, who filed a complaint to police on 4.8.2010 which was registered as Crime No. 181/2010 for the offences punishable under sections 307, 498-A, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The petitioner made certain grievances in respect of the manner in which the investigation proceeded in the case. The petitioner prayed for handing over the investigation to some other police authority from other district along with other prayers. 3. The respondent filed affidavit in reply through Shirish s/o. Cri.W.P. 784/2010 2 Leeladhar Sardeshpande, Additional Superintendent of Police, Latur and Shankar s/o. Ganpatrao Mamilwad, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural), Latur verified on 9th December 2010. 4. The learned APP submitted that earlier Police Sub Inspector Mr. Mule was the Investigating Officer and thereafter Mr. Mamilwad took over the investigation. 5. Prima facie, we find that there was delay in filing final report in respect of the incident reported to police. Learned APP submitted police report filed by the Investigating Officer, which is taken on record and marked as "X" for identification. In the affidavit in reply filed by Mr. Shankar Mamilwad, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural) Latur, it is contended in para 5, thus :- "5. I most respectfully say and submit that, the prayer of the Petitioner i.e. to arrest the accused does not survive, secondly the prayer clause "C" is not restricted to me so I have offer no comments. The prayer clause "D" is baseless as the present Investigating officer is Investigating the matter promptly and the allegations are only the allegation to color the Criminal Writ. Petition is taking every endeavor to complete investigation and apprehend all the accused persons. Investigation will be completed as early as possible and charge sheet will be filed very soon." 6. In spite of the same, unfortunately no chargesheet could be filed. Cri.W.P. 784/2010 3 It is a serious lapse on the part of investigating agency. We expect, the Superintendent of Police, Latur to take remedial steps so that in future offences reported are investigated within reasonable time and final reports filed accordingly. The Superintendent of Police shall call explanation from the Investigating officer for not filing the final report in the Court in spite of filing affidavit in this Court. 7. The learned APP, on instructions, makes a statement today that within 5 to 6 days from today, chargesheet will be filed in connection with the crime registered at Ghandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur. In view of the facts of the case and material placed before us, we find that on the statement made by the learned APP, the petition can be disposed of. The petition is accordingly disposed of. 8. Authenticated copy of this order be given to learned APP. APP shall forward the copy to Superintendent of Police, Latur for compliance of the order and report be submitted to Registrar of this Court, in respect of compliance of this order. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/criwp