1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 2160 OF 2009 Nanasaheb Dagadu Ingale ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra ...Respondents Mr. K.S. Patil i/by Mr. Prashant Hagare for the Petitioner Dr. F.R. Shaikh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State Mr. S.P. Kadam for the accused ­ present. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2009 P.C.:­ The petitioner filed a complaint, being C.R. No.157 of 2009, which was registered for offences punishable under Sections 306, 498­A, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the death of his sister Alka. He suspected that her sister had been murdered, and the police was not registering the 2 case under Section 302 read with Section 201, I.P.C., and was helping the accused. 2. The Assistant Inspector of Police has filed an affidavit. This affidavit does not show that an independent investigation has been done. It only tries to rely on the statement of the complainant. 3. One Ashok Dattu Pharate has given an affidavit to the Investigating Officer, but without investigating, the I.O. says that the information given by Mr. Pharate was untrue and the contentions raised by him in his affidavit were false. In his affidavit, Ashok Dattu Pharate has stated:­ “On 23­06­2009 at about 11.00 p.m. When I was returning to Manjargaon from Jeuar, I saw Mr.Mahadev Navnath Choudhari on his Splendor motor cycle near Choudhari Vasti in head light (focus) of my motor cycle light. His father was sitting on same motor cycle. At that time I saw Mahadev’s wife Mrs.Alka sleeping by resting her head on shoulder of Mahadev and her father­in­law Mr.Navnath holding her from the back. I called Mahadev but he did not pay attention to me and went away on road going towards Jeuar. I thought that they were going to hospital as their daughter­in­law Mrs. Alka might be 3 ill so I went to my home and slept after having dinner.” 4. The affidavit filed by the I.O. as well as Pharate is still more doubtful, in view of the fact that the I.O. has chosen to file affidavit of Dr. Mrs. Saroj D. Khot, a Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body. We do not understand why the Assistant Inspector of Police filed an affidavit of said doctor and why the said doctor obliged the Assistant Inspector of Police to file the affidavit in the Court. This affidavit suggests that the deceased had died because of drowning. We had not at any time asked the doctor to file an affidavit. Had the Court wanted, it could have got the Case Dairy, and in any case, the Autopsy Report was before us. It appears that in anxiety to get this Writ Petition dismissed, the I.O. requested the doctor to file an affidavit, and the doctor readily obliged the I.O. 5. In this view of the matter, we do not think that this case can be properly investigated upon by the State. Therefore, we direct that the investigation in this case should be carried by the 4 Central Bureau of Investigation. The Government of Maharashtra shall pass immediate orders transferring the investigation to the C.B.I. 6. The petition is disposed of. BILAL NAZKI, J. A.R. JOSHI, J.