1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2147 OF 2008 Rajendra Kumar Birendra Mishra .. Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Mr. Subhash Jha i/by M/s. Law Global for petitioner. Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for respondent CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. July 30, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Jha the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. V.B. Konde- Deshmukh, APP, appears for the State. 2. The petitioner is married to Anupama on 26/4/2007. He is employed with the IDFC Investment Advisors as Associate - Proprietary Equity. Anupama also came to be employed as Business Relationship Manager with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and she was transferred to Gujarat. She came to stay with the petitioner at Navi Mumbai on 10/5/2007 and it appears marital discords between the parties arose thereafter. In the mid-night of 10/8/2008 she approached the nearest police station and filed an FIR with allegations of dowry demand, domestic violence, harassment and ill- 2 treatment. It was stated in the said complaint that the petitioner and his parents were making demand of Rs.20 lacs to be brought by Anupama from her father so as to buy a Honda City Car and also a three bed-room new flat in Navi Mumbai. She also alleged in the complaint that she was being assaulted very frequently by the husband and on 10/8/2008 when the petitioner started beating her, she escaped from the house and approached the neighbours to rescue her. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that after the FIR was registered with the Vashi Police Station (FIR No. I-246/08), respondent no.3, who is allegedly known to the family of Anupama, started interfering and did not allow proper investigation to be carried out. In short, it is alleged that he influenced the investigation and the complaints of the petitioner were by-passed. It is also alleged that respondent no.3 had influenced the investigation against the petitioner and taken some steps so that the petitioner and his parents would be denied anticipatory bail. It is also alleged that a large police force was made available outside the court at Thane so as to take the petitioner in custody if his bail application would be rejected and this was at the instance of respondent no.3. He has been granted anticipatory bail by this court as per the order dated 7/10/2008. 4. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and prayed for the following reliefs: (a) that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to call for the records and proceedings concerning FIR No. 246/2008 of Vashi Police Station, Navi Mumbai and after examining the legality/validity 3 and/or propriety with regard to the maner in which the investigation has been conducted so far in the said case, may be pleased to direct transfer of investigation from Vashi Police Station, Navi Mumbai to the State CID and/or such other investigating agency as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case with direction to them to record the statements of all those witnesses who were either present in the meetings held to resolve the issue and/or those concerned with the matter concerning marriage of the petitioner and Anupama. (b) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to restrain the Respondent No.3 by an order and injunction of this Hon’ble Court thereby directing him not to interfere with the process of impartial investigation concerning FIR No. 246/2008 of Vashi Police Station, Navi Mumbai. (c) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct an enquiry and/or investigation be held against the respondent no.3 and so also the turn of events mentioned and set out in the petition and the manner in which the petitioner was hounded in the name of conducting investigation concerning the impugned FIR, being FIR No. 246/2008 of Vashi Police Station, Navi Mumbai. 4 5. As per the orders passed by this court from time to time, not only the concerned Investigating Officer but even the Commissioner of Police for Navi Mumbai as well as Respondent no.3 have filed their affidavits-in-reply and denied all the allegations. It has been pointed out in these affidavits that the complaint registered at the behest of Anupama was inquired into and the charge-sheet has been filed on 18/11/2008 in RCC No. 945 of 2008 in the court of the learned JMFC, CPD, Belapur, District – Thane. 6. Once the charge-sheet has been filed, on completion of the investigation, the alleged interference of respondent no.3 or transferring the investigation to some other police station would not arise and in any case the court of competent jurisdiction is not powerless to order further investigation, if so required, under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. Hence, at this stage the petitioner’s grievance regarding the investigation and prayer to transfer the said investigation to some other police station need not be gone into. The petitioner, if so desired, has the opportunity to put up his defence during the trial of the complaint. 7. Hence, the petition is disposed as such. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)