1 wp-3241-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3241 OF 2010 Dhankour Rambirsing Dudhani ...Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors ...Respondents ...... for Petitioner. Mr Rahul Kulkarni and A.A.Shinde, for the petitioner. Mr H.J. Dedhia, A.P.P.for the State CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED:- 10th February, 2011. P.C. 1. This petition is filed by the wife of the accused. The petitioner's husband and son have been named as accused. It is prayed that Respondent No.1 be directed to transfer the investigation of C.R No. 220/2010 registered with Swargate Police Station, Pune for offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code to C.I.D/C.B.I. Incidentally, it needs to be placed on record that the petitioner's husband and sons are accused in almost 21 number of criminal cases registered by the same Police Station as well 2 wp-3241-10 as Vishrambag Police Station, Sahakar Nagar Police Station and Nigadi Police Station respectively. The question is, whether the request made in this petition, to transfer the investigation to another Investigating Agency at the instance of the accused, ought to be entertained. We have no manner of doubt that the accused cannot insist for transfer of investigation of the case to a particular agency or that it should not be investigated by particular Agency, which is already pursuing the criminal action against him. The fact that some complaints were registered against the husband and the son of the petitioner in the same police station does not necessarily mean that all the police officers of the said police station are biased against the said accused. The offences referred to in paragraph No. 2 of the petition are spread over from 1983 onwards upto this time. This, on the other hand, would indicate that the petitioner‘s husband and son are habitual offenders. Suffice it to observe that, the request to transfer the investigation from the local police station to some other Investigating Agency at the instance of the accused cannot be countenanced. 2. Hence, the petition fails and dismissed accordingly. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)