AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.215 OF 2010 Sau. Phulabai Dattu Konde ... Petitioner Vs. The Superintendent of Police & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Balasaheb R. Deshmukh for the petitioner. Mr. R. More, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: MRS. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : 11TH MARCH, 2010. P.C.:- 1. The petitioner is an old lady. She has prayed that the investigation of C.R. No.16 of 2010 registered under Sections 363, 420, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”) be transferred to the Local Crime Branch / State CID. AJN 2 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at some length and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner of land admeasuring 50 Are, situate in Gat No.802, Khedshivapur, Taluka Haveli, District Pune (for convenience, “the said land”). The petitioner's mother Sugandhabai was the owner of the said land. She had filed a suit against Yashwant Konde and others for partition and injunction in respect of the said land. The matter travelled upto this court. The petitioner did not have money to spend on the litigation. Accused Shrikant Palaskar offered to help the petitioner by spending money and engaging a lawyer on a condition that after the decision of the court, the petitioner transfers 10 gunthas out of the said land to him. The petitioner agreed to this suggestion. According to the petitioner, the civil matter which was pending in this court was settled and the said land came to her share. She was given possession AJN 3 thereof. On 22/1/2009, the accused came to her house and asked her to execute the sale deed. She told them that when her husband comes home, she will talk to him and execute sale deed in respect of 10 gunthas. It is the petitioner's case that the accused abducted her after threatening her that she would be killed. At about 9.00 a.m., they took her to the Sub-Registrar's office at Ambegaon. The accused by using force took her signatures and thump impressions under coercion on a sale deed in respect of the said land though she had agreed to transfer only 10 gunthas of land. Signatures of the petitioner were taken on several documents. No money was paid to her. After obtaining her signatures, she was released. According to the petitioner, she did not know that the said land was shown as having purchased by the accused by sale deed dated 21/1/2009. She came to know about it only in November, 2008. 4. She went to file a complaint with the Rajgad Police Station, Nasrapur, Taluka Bhor, District Pune on AJN 4 4/11/2009. However, that complaint was not registered. She also went to the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Chavan Nagar, Pashan Pune, District Pune. She gave her complaint dated 4/11/2009 to the Superintendent of Police. However, the Superintendent of Police also did not take any action. On the same day, she went to the Local Crime Branch, Pune. Though they started an inquiry, they transferred the case to the Rajgad Police Station because according to them, they were not directed to investigate the matter either by any court or by any superior officers and also the crime was allegedly committed within the jurisdiction of Rajgad Police Station. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Rajgad Police Station registered the FIR. However, the Rajgad Police Station wrongly charged the accused with offences punishable under Section 363 of the IPC, which provides for punishment for kidnapping. Counsel pointed out that Section 359 of the IPC defines “kidnapping” as kidnapping from India and kidnapping from “lawful AJN 5 guardianship”. Learned counsel pointed out that the present case does not fall in either of the categories and, therefore, the accused have been wrongly charged under Section 363 of the IPC. He submitted that no arrests have been effected so far. Learned counsel submitted that the investigation is not properly conducted by the Rajgad Police Station and, therefore, appropriate direction be given to the Local Crime Branch to investigate the petitioner's case. 6. The delay in lodging the complaint should not be taken against the petitioner at this stage because she is an illiterate lady and prima facie delay is reasonably explained. At this stage, investigation must go on and impact of delay can be ascertained later on. 7. Prima facie, it appears to us that the petitioner, who is an old illiterate lady, is defrauded. Her land admeasuring 50 Are is shown to have been sold to some people at a paltry amount of Rs.3 lakhs. The petitioner is AJN 6 present in the court. She states that she has not even received Rs.3 lakhs. The value of the said land is stated to be about Rs.1 crore. Investigation of this case must be transferred from local police who may be amenable to pressure, to an independent agency. In the circumstances, we feel that the investigation of this case must be transferred to the Local Crime Branch, Pune, who was initially conducting investigation. Hence, we direct that C.R. No.16 of 2010 registered at the Rajgad Police Station be transferred to the Local Crime Branch, Pune. The Local Crime Branch, Pune shall conduct necessary investigation expeditiously. Any observations made by us on merits of the case are merely prima facie observations. The investigating agency must not be influenced by them. The investigation should be conducted independently. 8. The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. [MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.]