1 21WP.2288-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2288 OF 2011 Mrs.Asifa Sultan Ashraf Khan. ..Petitioner. Vs. Sultan Ashraf Abdul Rehman Khan and 4 others. ..Respondents. .......... Mr. Khan Abdul Wahab, i/b. Imran Shaikh, for the Petitioner. Mr. D.P Adsule, APP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. Deepak Raut, for Respondent No.2. Mr.Dilip Shantaram Vichare, PSI, Ghatkopar Police Station is present. .......... CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR AND P. D. KODE, JJ. DATED : 08th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. We have perused the medical report,on which both – the petitioner as well as police officials have placed reliance. The petitioner is placing reliance on the remark noted in the document at page-104 which is suggestive of the fact that vertical incised wound was caused to the petitioner of 7 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm over back below neck. It also indicates that tetanus injection was administered to the petitioner considering injury on her person. Besides, suturing was also done as is noted in the same document. Learned APP relies on the other part of the document to contend that the injury was only CLW injury and for which reason PPD 2 21WP.2288-11 the police officer was justified in registering the only NC complaint and not FIR. 2. Suffice it to note that both – the police officer as well as the learned APP have glossed over the fact that the same document refers to different injuries. The injury referred to at page 104 is over back below neck, whereas the injury referred to at page 105 of the same document which is CLW is over back. It may be a coincidence that the two injuries are of the same measurement. However, learned APP is not in a position to justify the endorsement appearing in the medical report which suggests that tetanus injection was administered to the petitioner as a treatment for the injury suffered by the petitioner and also suturing. This, however, would be matter of investigation. The police officer completely misdirected himself in registering the offence as NC complaint. 3. Realizing this position, now learned APP submits that, in that case, the police officer would take necessary steps of adding appropriate offence and register it as cognizable offence. 4. In our opinion, the investigation should be done by the officer other than the officer who dealt with the matter and registered the same as NC complaint only. The matter be investigated by some other 3 21WP.2288-11 officer not below the rank of Police Inspector. The police station in- charge shall do the needful in this behalf. The petitioner shall remain present in the office of the police station in-charge on 19.9.2011 at around 11:00 a.m. and give her statement which the police officer in-charge shall cause to record and if it discloses cognizable offence shall proceed in the matter on that basis in accordance with law. 5. Petition is disposed of on the above terms. (P. D. KODE, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)