1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 709 OF 2009 Imamuddin s/o Noor Mohammad Tigala ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr K.J. Ghute Patil, A.P.P. for respondents no.1 to 4; Mr Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for respondents no.5 to 8. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. (Date of reserving the order : 8th January, 2010 Date of pronouncing the order : 11th January, 2010) ORDER : This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus for transferring the investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation or to any other independent agency. 2 2. It appears that the daughter of the petitioner Nazmeenbano was married to one Shahid Shabbir Chandija on 26.5.2007. According to the petitioner, his daughter had complained of the illtreatment on the ground of failure to pay the dowry as demanded. Ultimately, deceased Nazmeenbano was found to be in her matrimonial home on 15.5.2009. Nazmeenbano was found hanging from the ceiling. It also appears that the petitioner, father of Nazmeenbano lodged a report against the accused on 15.5.2009. On the basis of the said report an offence punishable under section 304-B, 306, 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act came to be registered. The investigation was carried out by the police and we are informed that a charge-sheet in the said crime has been submitted and the case now stands committed to the Court of Sessions. By this petition, the petitioner prays for transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. 3. It is urged by Shri A.S. Bajaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the first information report of the petitioner contains several statements which have not been stated by the petitioner. It is also urged before us that in the inquest panchnama the panch witness is shown to be the wife of the accused. It is also stated that in the scene of the offence panchnama the height of the ceiling has not been stated and in the post mortem report complete injuries have not been referred to. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the parents of 3 deceased had noticed several other injuries but the same are not reflected either in the inquest panchnama or in the post mortem report. It is urged before us that without awaiting for the report of the Chemical Analyser in respect of the examination of the rope, the charge-sheet has been filed. For the aforesaid reasons it is urged before us that the investigation needs to be transferred to some independent agency as the investigation done in the present case is a tainted one. The learned Counsel for the respondents/accused as well as the learned A.P.P. have stoutly opposed the petition, to urge before us that no grounds exist for ordering either reinvestigation/fresh investigation or further investigation. 4. The inquest panchnama shows the name of wife of the accused as a panch witness. When the inquest panchnama had been drawn, accidental death had been registered and the offence was yet to be registered. In any event, since the post mortem examination has been conducted and the Medical Officer has stated about the injuries and the cause of death, any irregularity in drawing of the inquest panchnama, according to us pales into insignificance. The contention of the petitioner that the first information report contains several statements which had not been made by him is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be decided in the present writ petition. Similarly, the contention of the petitioner that his daughter deceased Nazmeenbano had sustained several other injuries which have not been referred to in the post mortem examination also is a question which cannot be decided in the present 4 petition. The investigation has been completed and a charge-sheet has been submitted. The Trial Court obviously has the necessary jurisdiction to frame charge for an offence if there is material disclosing an offence other than the offences registered by the police. We have perused the charge-sheet and we do not find that the investigation is tainted in any manner so as to warrant at this stage either ordering a fresh investigation or further investigation. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments of the Supreme Court :- (1) Gudalure M.J. Cherian & ors. vs. Union of India & ors., (1992) 1 Supreme Court Cases 397 (2) Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha venkata Vishwandha Maharaj vs. State of A.P. & ors. (1999) 5 Supreme Court Cases 740 (3) Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & anr. vs. State of Gujarat & ors., (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 158 (4) Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat & ors., (2004) 5 Supreme Court Cases 347 (5) Ramesh Kumari vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & ors., (2006) 2 Supreme Court Cases 677 (6) Sasi Thomas vs. State & ors., (2006) 12 Supreme Court Cases 421 5 (7) Ramachandran vs. R. Udhayakumar & ors., (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 413. In the light of the facts which have been noted by us above, the ratio laid down in the said judgments is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 6. After giving our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced before us by the learned Counsel for the parties, according to us there is no merit in the present case. Merely because the police had filed the charge-sheet without obtaining the report of the Chemical Analyser in respect of the examination of the rope, the entire investigation in the said crime cannot be said to be tainted so as to warrant the grant of reliefs prayed for by the petitioner. Since there is no merit in the petition, the petition is summarily dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criwp709.09