1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No.415 of 2011 [Ushatai Ashok Lawhale & another Vs. State of Mah. & two others] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. M.P. Kariya, Adv., for the petitioners. Mr. R.S. Nayak, APP for respondents. ----- CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 23rd November, 2011. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed at the behest of the petitioners, who are accused in Crime No. 10/2011, which is alleged to have been committed on 11th February, 2011 at about 8-00 p.m. 2. The petitioners pray for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the transfer of investigation to either State CID or the Central Bureau of Investigation, and also for a direction that the respondent no.2 named in the petition should be excluded from the investigation directed to be carried out. 2 3. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. 4. The principal ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the investigation has not been done properly by the Investigating Officer and the investigation is a tainted investigation. On the basis of the Dying Declaration of deceased, the present petitioners have been arraigned as accused in the said crime. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further urged before us that the residents of the village numbering about fifty-eight had submitted a representation to the Commissioner of Police some time in March, 2011, and though such representation was submitted, no steps have been by the Investigating Officer in respect of the investigation on those lines. At this stage, a reference to representation, which is annexed to the petition as Annexure-G, may be made. By the said representation, the residents of the village, namely fifty-eight in number, claim that the present petitioners are not involved in the commission of the offence and, therefore, they have prayed that the names of the accused may be omitted from the said crime. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further urged before us that, in fact, the son of the deceased is involved in the commission of the murder of deceased. 5. On notice being issued to the 3 respondents, the respondents have filed their reply and in the reply it is stated that there was no evidence, whatsoever, in respect of the involvement of the son of the deceased. It is further stated that on the basis of the Dying Declaration of the deceased, which was recorded on 11th February, 2011, the present petitioners have been joined as accused. 6. Undisputedly, a charge-sheet in the present case has been filed and the case now stands committed to the Court of Sessions. We have examined the Affidavit-in-Reply in detail as well as we have taken into consideration the submissions of the petitioners, and, according to us, no case, whatsoever, is made out for directing the fresh investigation to be carried out either by the State CID or by the Central Bureau of Investigation. In any event, such a relief is not available at the behest of the accused in the said crime. 7. There being no merit in the present petition, this petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. Judge Judge |Hedau| 4