1 2601.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2601 OF 2010 Sonali Pravin Chavan ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.H.S.Venegavkar for Petitioner. Dr.F.R.Shaikh, A.P.P. for State. Mr.A.M.Kulkarni for Intervener. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED:- DECEMBER 1, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned A.P.P. 2. The grievance in this Petition is that although the Petitioner complained of having sustained burn injuries on 13th October 2009, the local police registered offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the named accused. The fact that such burn injuries were caused, is supported by the medical case record issued by the Rural Hospital, Kodoli bearing 2 2601.10.sxw No.1482. The doctor has opined that the injuries suffered by the Petitioner was on account of kerosene burns over abdomen, thigh and axilla on 13th October 2009 at 4.00 a.m. at Tasgaon. The superficial burns which are now stated to be 20% burn injury has been shown in the said medical case record. The only explanation offered by the Investigating Officer through A.P.P. is that the Petitioner had approached the Police Station on 13th and 14th October, but eventually lodged the FIR only on 15th October 2009. The FIR was registered on the basis of the statement made by the Petitioner which did not make reference to the fact that she had sustained burn injuries. It is difficult to accept this explanation, especially when the medical case record produced before us supports the stand of the Petitioner and more so, because it also records that the information regarding the injury sustained by the Petitioner is given to the Police at Tasgaon Police Station. The fact remains that the injury sustained by the Petitioner cannot be brushed aside whereas going by the complaint made by the Petitioner and reiterated by the communication dated 9th November 2009, it is more than obvious that the grievance was one regarding offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Notwithstanding this position, the Investigating Officer chose to register offence only under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code for reasons best known to him. 3 2601.10.sxw 3. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, we find merits in the grievance of the Petitioner that the Investigating Officer ought to have additionally registered offence also under Section 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the statement of the Petitioner and more particularly, the written complaint made by her. The Counsel appearing for the interveners submits that the grievance of the Petitioner is ill-founded. That is a matter which will have to be investigated after registration of the FIR for offence under Section 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the named persons. Those aspects are left open to be examined by the concerned investigating agency and take it to its logical end in accordance with law. 4. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in directing the Investigating Officer to register offence also under Section 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the named accused. Considering the fact that the present Investigating Officer has not proceeded with the investigation as was required to be done in view of the material produced by the Petitioner, we think it appropriate to direct that further investigation be handed over to Crime Branch, Sangli to be proceeded with by the Officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police. 4 2601.10.sxw 5. We dispose of the Petition on the above terms. 6. We hope and trust that the newly appointed investigating agency will proceed in the matter in accordance with law. We keep the question regarding the inaction of the present Investigating Officer open to be agitated in appropriate proceedings. (A.P.BHANGALE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)