1 WP.2743/2010 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2743 OF 2010 Smt.Kalavati Sadashiv Dhage ....Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents. ----- Mr. S.V. Kotwal with Jayant Bardeshkar, for the Petitioner. Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for the State. ---- CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D. KODE, JJ DATED:- SEPTEMBER 28, 2010. P.C.: 1] Leave to amend to delete respondent no.3 as prayed is granted. Amendment be carried out during the course of the day. 2] Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 3] The principal grievance in this petition is that fair investigation has not been undertaken by the Investigating Officer. 2 WP.2743/2010 The complaint of the petitioner was not only with regard to the theft which had taken place from their house but also about the possibility of named persons being responsible for the same with intention to terrorize the petitioner so that petitioner would eventually succumb to the demand of the said persons to dispose of the landed property of the petitioner as demanded by them. The Investigating Officer has not examined that aspect of the matter, particularly when it has come on record that the rifle which was stolen from the premises of the petitioner was restored at the same place subsequently. That reinforces the suspicion of the petitioner that the attempt of the said person was not only to commit the theft of valuables such as ornaments, but also to terrorise the petitioner. 4] Significantly, it is noticed that the reply filed by the Investigating Officer before the concerned Court concedes the position that the case diary was made accessible to the accused. That discloses the casual manner in which the investigation was done by the concerned Investigating Officer. Moreover, even the learned Public Prosecutor has expressed displeasure in the application filed by him before the concerned Court to the effect that the main person who committed offence has not been proceeded against nor even arrested though there was sufficient material to indicate his complicity. The involvement of Tukaram Ingale has come on record. 3 WP.2743/2010 In spite of that, no steps were taken by the Investigating Officer against him. It is true that the Investigating Officer has already filed the charge-sheet before the concerned Court, but the charge-sheet would be founded on faulty investigation done by the said Investigating Officer for the reasons best known to him or to shield the main accused. The trial court may not be in a position to direct transfer of investigation as such. At best it would direct the same Investigating Officer to investigate the matter further. 5] In the interest of justice, in our opinion, it would be appropriate that an independent Police Official, not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Police Officer of Akluz Division, shall carry on further investigation in the light of the allegations made by the petitioner. Further, on the basis of the the material that would come on record, may then submit his further report under section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908. The said Officer shall immediately record statement of all concerned and do the needful as may be required in accordance with law. 6] The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms, with liberty to petitioner to apply for appropriate reliefs either before the lower court or by way of suitable proceedings before this court for requisite directions, if and when occasion arises. 4 WP.2743/2010 7] A copy of this Order be forwarded to the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, for taking necessary action as may be advised for the slipshod investigation done by the concerned Investigating Officer, in accordance with law. (P.D. KODE, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)