1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.113 OF 2011 Amaridevi w/o Habataram Solanki ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents Mr D.R.Irale Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr N.H.Borade, A.P.P. for respondent-State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 14th February 2011 PER COURT 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to investigate Crime No.60 of 2010, registered by Police Station, Tuljapur, through either C.I.D. or other independent authority. 2. On the basis of the first information report, Crime No.60 of 2010 came to be registered for offences punishable under Section 394, 328, 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequent to the death of the injured, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code came to be added. After due investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed before the competent Court on 13.9.2010. Mr D.R.Irale Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the trial has been committed to the Court of Sessions. 3. Investigation afresh is sought on the grounds, which are enumerated at item Nos.1 to 5 of paragraph 15. All the grounds are extremely vague and do not make out even a prima facie case for directing the investigation afresh. The grounds state in omnibus manner 2 that lacunae has been left by the Investigating Officer to enable the accused to go scot-free. At ground No.IV, it is urged that “there was no case of robbery and the Investigation totally failed to look into the case from that angle as well as from the different mode of business which has resulted into death of Habatram.” Whether it was a case of robbery or otherwise would be arrived at on the basis of evidence on record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further urged that Article 21 in respect of deceased has been violated on account of the brutal murder alleged to have been committed by the accused and, therefore, afresh investigation in this case is necessary. The trial is yet to be concluded for determining as to whether the accused are responsible for the death of the deceased. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Samatha Vs. State of A.P. and others, 1997 (8) SCC 191 in support of the aforesaid proposition. We have read paragraph 78 of the report, which was relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The facts of the aforesaid reported judgment being wholly inapplicable to the facts of the present case, we find that there is no merit in the present petition and the petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( A.V. POTDAR, J. ) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/113.11criwp) 3