1 wp286010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2860 OF 2010 Gangajamuna @ Sangeeta Rajesh Dharap ...Petitioner V/s. The Senior Police Inspector, Dadar Police Station, & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Mahesh Vaswani for the Petitioner Mr. D.P. Adsule, A.P.P., for the State Mr. Dharmendra Rohra, Mr. Ashok P. Shahani, Ms. Reshma Mishra and Mr. Ganesh Narayan for Respondents No. 5 to 9. CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE: 22ND DECEMBER, 2010 P.C.:- Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, amongst others, seeks direction to transfer the investigation of C.R. No. 293/2009 registered at Dadar Police Station, Mumbai, to competent agency, who will undertake fair investigation of the matter and take the 2 wp286010 complaint to its logical conclusion. Although parties have filed several documents and have exchanged affidavits, we would refrain to refer to the events which unfolded in filing of the charge-sheet before the concerned Court. 3. The admitted facts are that complaint was made by the petitioner to the Dadar Police Station on 27th October, 2009 in relation to offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence of Section 307 has been added subsequently on 12th December, 2009. The charge-sheet has been eventually filed by the Investigating Officer before the concerned Court on 3rd April, 2010. 4. The grievance in this petition, primarily, is two-fold. Firstly, that although the complaint was in relation to offence under Section 406 of I.P.C., the Investigating Officer has not taken any serious and meaningful steps to unravel the truth and more so, to recover the Stridhan of the petitioner. The second grievance is on account of the failure of the Investigating Officer to even adhere to the basic investigating skills of visiting the spot when allegation pertains to offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. so as to conduct spot panchnama. 3 wp286010 5. Insofar as the second grievance is concerned, the same has been complied with by the Investigating Officer only on 24th November, 2010 during the pendency of this petition. No explanation is forthcoming as to what prevented the Investigating Officer to conduct such spot panchnama in earlier point of time, much less before submission of the charge-sheet, which happened as back as on 3rd April, 2010. Moreso, why the Investigating Officer has failed to file the charge-sheet without complying with this basic requirement, though the allegation was one of offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. Besides, we are in agreement with the grievance of the petitioner that the Investigating Officer has not done enough for recovery of the Stridhan of the petitioner, which was the complaint made before him. 6. The learned A.P.P. has invited our attention to the communication sent by the Investigating Officer on 7th December, 2009 to the respondent-husband, calling upon him to produce the ornaments and property referred to in the said communication. In response to the said letter, the respondent-husband wrote to the Investigating Officer on 13th December, 2009. Insofar as the return of Stridhan and other properties is concerned, the stand taken in this reply sent by the husband is that all the gold ornaments left behind by the petitioner at the time of 4 wp286010 leaving the house have been duly returned to the petitioner and which fact is reinforced from the acknowledgment given by the petitioner on the valuation report and witnessed by the cousin of petitioner, Mr. Satya R. Dumbella, who has witnessed the receipt written by the petitioner. However, nothing further has been done by the Investigating Officer. That would indicate that the Investigating Officer accepted the statement made by the respondent-husband as it is, without himself investigating into the correctness of the stand of the respondent-husband. That pre-supposes that the investigation has been done in a very casual manner. 7. In our opinion, considering the seriousness of the allegations in the petition, and more particularly in the complaint made by the petitioner, it is appropriate that the further investigation of the case should be entrusted to independent agency, such as State C.I.D. We, accordingly, direct that the Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, shall immediately assign the further investigation of the case in question to State C.I.D., which investigation will be conducted by officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. That shall be done as expeditiously as possible. The investigation to the new agency shall be entrusted not later than 5 wp286010 31st December, 2010. We hope and trust that the newly appointed investigating agency will examine the matter from all angles and conduct such investigation as may be essential in accordance with law, so that the complaint of the petitioner is taken to its logical end. 8. The counsel appearing for the respondent-husband submits that his clients are more than willing to co-operate even with the newly- appointed investigating agency. Needless to observe that the newly- appointed investigating agency shall take into account all material documents and evidence that may be brought to his notice by either side, and take such measures as may be warranted in accordance with law. 9. The counsel for the respondent-husband submits that the documents which are available with the Special Cell for Women are crucial and the newly-appointed investigating agency should also consider the same, which have been overlooked by the present Investigating Officer before filing of the charge-sheet. 10. In view of the above, nothing more requires to be done in this petition. It is disposed of by making it clear that none of the observations made in this order are expression of final opinion, one way 6 wp286010 or the other. The investigating agency as well as the concerned Court will consider all aspects of the matter on its own merits in accordance with law. 11. Copy of the order be forwarded forthwith to the Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, for information and necessary action in the light of the observations made, including to take action against the present Investigating Officer for the laxity in investigation. A.P. BHANGALE, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.