1 wp2417.08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2417 of 2010 Mr. Vinod Moti Jhangiani ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents Mr. Peter Lobo-advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Bohra i/b. M/s. Khan & associates for respondents 2 & 3. Ms. S.V.Gajare-APP for the State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED:- OCTOBER 13, 2010. P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. By this Petition it is contended that the investigation undertaken by the Investigating Officer against the Respondent No.2 erroneously proceeds only in relation to offence under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. In the first place, there was no propriety in registering two separate FIRs in relation to one offence. The police proceeded to register two separate cases 2 wp2417.08 by way of CR No. 7/2009 against Respondent No.3 (son of Respondent No. 2) initially under Section 279, 338 of IPC and Section 4(1) and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act and after the death of the victim further offence under Section 304 A of IPC. However, insofar as the Respondent No. 2 father is concerned, the offence in respect of the same incident has been registered separately only under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As aforesaid, there was no propriety in registering separate cases in respect of one incident. Moreover, we find substance in the grievance of the Petitioner that no offence is registered against Respondent No. 2-father of aiding and abetting, as the vehicle which was driven by Respondent No. 3 stood in his name. Besides, it transpires that even insurance of the said vehicle was not done which fact, however, is disputed by Respondent No. 2 through Counsel. 4. Our attention was invited to the affidavit of the Investigating officer which mentions that no offence was made out regarding aiding and abetting of any offence by the Respondent No. 2. In absence of registration of FIR against Respondent No. 2 for the said offence, we wonder on what basis the Investigating Officer has made that enquiry or recorded that opinion. Moreover, nothing has been produced before us to indicate that the material relied by the Investigating Officer to form such opinion was part of the charge 3 wp2417.08 sheet filed against Respondent No.3. 5. Suffice it to observe that the circumstances in which the Respondent No. 3 got possession of the keys of the vehicle in question and how he proceeded to drive the said vehicle is a matter which warranted investigation. If it were to be found that Respondent No. 3 had taken the vehicle which was in the name of Respondent No.2 and in any case Respondent No. 3 could not have driven the said vehicle being a minor and without proper licence, the Respondent no. 2 being owner of the vehicle and in possession of the keys thereof will have to explain the circumstances in which Respondent No. 3 was allowed to drive the said vehicle which resulted in accident and eventually causing death of one person. To that extent, we are in agreement with the grievance of the Petitioner that even if two separate cases have been registered by the local police, there was no reason for the local police to not register the offence of aiding and abetting the offence committed by Respondent No. 3 - his minor son. After registration of such offence against the Respondent No. 2, it was expected of the local police to investigate that angle and on the basis of material which would be collected during investigation proceed against Respondent No. 2 in accordance with law. 4 wp2417.08 6. Considering the fact that the case registered against Respondent No. 2 has already ended in conviction as the Respondent No. 2 pleaded guilty of offence under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in the fact situation of the present case, we direct the Respondents to register FIR against the Respondent No. 2 for offence of aiding and abetting the offence committed by Respondent No. 3 and investigate into the same by Senior Officer not below the rank of ACP. 7. We make it clear that the order passed in this proceedings are not expression of opinion either way on the proceedings which have already concluded against the private Respondents and we have no intention to reopen the same which has ended in their conviction consequent to having pleaded guilty. Besides the above directions, we do not think it necessary to issue any further directions or enquire into any other matter raised by the Petitioner. Petition disposed of accordingly. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)