AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3301 OF 2009 Mrs. Mangal Raghunath Jadhav ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Rajesh D. Bindra for the petitioner. Ms. U.V. Kejariwal, A.P.P. for the State. Mr. Purushottam Karad, A.C.P. Vashi and Mr. Arun Walture, Senior P.I. Koparkhairne Police Station, are present in the court. CORAM: MRS. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : 10TH MARCH, 2010. P.C.:- 1. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community. She is residing at Sector 16, Room No.62/63, Koparkhairane, Navi Mumbai – 400 709 with her husband and daughters. She had three daughters. One of them died on 12/7/2009. She committed suicide. We shall AJN 2 advert to her suicide a little later. 2. In short, it is the case of the petitioner that certain persons residing near her house assaulted, abused, insulted and molested the petitioner and her daughters on 4/5/2009. Though the petitioner went to register the FIR in respect of this incident, the FIR was not immediately registered. But, it was registered on 14/7/2009. According to to the petitioner, the police officers attached to the Koparkhairane Police Station purposely and with mala fide intention did not register the FIR. They failed and neglected to perform their duty. It is further the case of the petitioner that on account of the fact that the persons residing near her house, who are the accused, insulted, abused and molested her daughter “Saujanya”, she committed suicide. Though the petitioner reported this matter orally to the Koparkhairane Police Station, the concerned officers did not take any action. According to the petitioner, there is an unholy nexus between the police officers of the Koparkhairane Police Station and the AJN 3 accused. A prayer is, therefore, made in this petition that the investigation of the case be withdrawn from the Koparkhairane Police Station and handed over to the State C.I.D. or other appropriate agency. 3. Admittedly, in respect of the incident dated 4/5/2009, two cross complaints were filed. As already indicated by us, one was filed by the petitioner on 14/7/2009. It is registered as C.R. No.141 of 2009. We are informed that in respect of the said C.R., charge-sheet is filed on 26/10/2009 and it is now numbered as C.C. No.1089 of 2009. Since offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are alleged against the accused, the said case would be tried by the Sessions Court. The accused in the said case have filed complaint being C.R. No.82 of 2009. It was registered on 5/5/2009. Charge-sheet in the said C.R. was filed on 3/2/2010. The said case is now numbered as C.C. No.120 of 2010. AJN 4 4. We must note at this stage that if in respect of incident dated 4/5/2009 filed by the opponents of the petitioner, complaint was registered by the police, the police ought to have also registered cross-complaint filed by the petitioner immediately. We are not happy about the fact that the police took two months' time to register the petitioner's complaint. We are informed that out of six police officers, who were concerned with this case, five have been transferred and a Departmental Inquiry is initiated against them by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (HQ), Navi Mumbai and the inquiry is in progress. In our opinion, prima facie, this is a failure of duty of the highest degree and if a case is made out, stringent action needs to be taken against such erring officers. Our attention is drawn by learned counsel for the petitioner to a complaint dated 12/6/2009 addressed by the petitioner to the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, in respect of the default of the officers of the Koparkhairane Police Station. In this complaint, certain vital facts have been stated by the petitioner. While conducting the Departmental AJN 5 Inquiry, that complaint should be taken into account. It need not even be stated that delay in recording the FIR in criminal cases ultimately adversely affects the case. The police should have avoided this situation. We expect the Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai to ensure that the Departmental Inquiry is conducted independently and impartially and if the officers are found guilty, appropriate action should be taken against them. The Departmental Inquiry should be conducted expeditiously. 5. Another submission which was made by learned counsel for the petitioner is as regards suicide of the petitioner's daughter. We are informed that the suicide is the result of insulting treatment meted out by the accused, who are residing near her house. Though we do not want to express any final opinion on this aspect, we are wary of directing fresh investigation at this stage particularly because the charge-sheets are already filed in both the counter complaints. Besides, we find that immediately after the suicide, no detailed written AJN 6 complaint was addressed by the petitioner either to the Koparkhairane Police Station or to the Commissioner of Police. Our attention is drawn to the letter dated 3/10/2009 addressed by the petitioner's advocate to the Inspector of Police of Koparkhairane Police Station. This letter is forwarded after the petitioner's daughter committed suicide. In this letter, though there was a reference of use of abusive language by the accused and the alleged mental torture to which the family of the petitioner was allegedly subjected, there is no reference to the suicide of the petitioner's daughter. In our opinion, this fact ought to have been put in the forefront by the petitioner's advocate in his letter dated 3/10/2009. The Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) contains several provisions which can give redress to the petitioner. Under Section 173 (8) further investigation is possible. Under Section 311 thereof any Court may at any stage of any enquiry , trial or other proceeding under the Code may summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance , though not summoned as a AJN 7 witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined ; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. Under Section 319 of the Code where , in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require , for the said purpose. Under Section 216 of the Code any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act confers vast and unrestricted powers on the trial Court to put any question it pleases in any form at any time, to any witness or to the parties about any fact relevant or irrelevant in order to discover the relevant facts. The AJN 8 courts are not expected to be passive onlookers. They must strive to arrive at a just decision of the case. Therefore, if the trial is concluded in the light of the above provisions the petitioner’s grievance would be redressed. Transfer of investigation particularly after filing of the charge-sheet is not necessary. 6. Ms. Kejariwal, learned A.P.P. has pointed out that in respect of the suicide committed by the petitioner's daughter, a station diary entry has been made by the Koparkhairane Police Station on 29/6/2009. Learned A.P.P. pointed out that it being a medico legal case, the police conducted an inquiry. In his affidavit, Mr. Purushottam Karad, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vashi Division, Navi Mumbai, has stated that an inquiry was conducted and during the inquiry, no information could be gathered as to why the petitioner's daughter committed suicide. Learned A.P.P. informed us that out of the eight accused in C.R. No.141 of 2009, a bond of Rs.3 lakhs each has been taken from six accused. Looking to AJN 9 the background of the case, we expect the police to keep a watch over the activities of the accused and take stringent action if the accused commit breach of the bonds. We also direct the police to take note of any complaint made by the petitioner or her daughters regarding any harassment from the said accused or any other persons in the concerned area and deal with it in accordance with law. 7. If the petitioner addresses a detailed complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai, bringing to his notice any vital and glaring facts about the suicide of the petitioner's daughter, he shall assign it to an independent officer of his choice for inquiry. We make it clear that we have not directed the petitioner to make any such complaint. The complaint may be made if the petitioner is desires. AJN 10 8. The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. [MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.]