{1} CWP No.260/2011 drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.260 OF 2011 Arun Onkar Patil PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.P.Brahme, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs.Yogita M.Kshirsagar, APP for respondent State Mr.N.B.Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 13 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 7 th October 2011 PER COURT: 1. By the present petition, under Article 227 of the constitution r/w section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner-original complainant has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 10.03.2011 passed by Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner below Exhibit-42 in Sessions Case No.20/2010. By the impugned order, the request of the petitioner to direct reinvestigation has been turned down. {2} CWP No.260/2011 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner followed by learned APP and learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 13. 3. The facts, which gave rise to file this petition, may briefly be stated thus- On the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner, an offence at Crime No.7/2010 was registered in Marwad police station on 02.02.2010. Prior to that an AD was registered in respect of the said incident on 25.01.2010. The petitioner, in his complaint, alleged that in the evening on 21.01.2010, one girl had been to his house alleging that she was teased by the deceased-son of the petitioner. Thereafter around 10.30 p.m. on the same day, respondents No.4 to 13, original accused came to the house of the petitioner and assaulted the deceased alleging that he had teased the daughter of respondent No.13. The deceased was released after he tendered apology to the said girl. Thereafter the deceased came to home and intimated the incident to his parents and also informed that he felt humiliated and defamed and left the house in the night of 21.01.2010 and did not return. On 25.01.2010, dead {3} CWP No.260/2011 body of deceased Prakash was found floating in one well and accordingly AD was registered. Thereafter, during the inquiry of the AD, statement of the complainant-petitioner came to be recorded. It appears that thereafter the petitioner was called upon to give his statement before police on 02.02.2010 and on the basis of his complaint an offence at Crime No.7/2010 came to be registered with Marwad police station u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code. It further appears that after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed and the case is accordingly committed to the Court of Sessions and numbered as Sessions Case No.20/2010. After charge came to be framed, the petitioner stepped into witness box and his evidence was over. While evidence of PW-2 was being recorded, the petitioner moved an application (Exhibit-42) seeking reinvestigation in the matter. After hearing the parties, the said application came to be rejected by the trial court, by a reasoned order, which is impugned in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that after considering the condition in which the dead body was found, the Investigating Office should have registered the offence punishable {4} CWP No.260/2011 u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code along with other sections, and he failed to do so. It is further urged that the dead body was found in a well on 25.01.2010 and the statement of the petitioner came to be recorded on 02.02.2010 and the IO should have registered the complaint prior to that. It is further urged that considering the entire scenario, the Investigating Officer should have registered the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the Investigating Officer on the basis of the averments in the complaint, has registered the offence punishable u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Respondents have filed detailed replies. In the reply filed on behalf of respondents No.4 to 13, it is sated that once the charge is framed and trial is commenced, reinvestigation is not permissible. It is further submitted that considering the evidence of the petitioner, particularly, examination in chief, wherein the petitioner-complainant has proved the contents of the complaint as true and correct, now the complainant cannot contend otherwise than his evidence on oath. Thus, according to the original accused, no case is made out to direct reinvestigation at this stage. In the {5} CWP No.260/2011 affidavit filed on behalf of respondent-State, it is stated that there is no fault in the investigation and hence it is urged to dismiss the present petition. 6. Considering the rival submissions, it is clear that after the dead body was found in a well, AD was registered. It is also a fact that thereafter statement of the complainant was recorded during the said inquiry so also on the basis of his complaint an offence at Crime No.7/2010 has been registered. I have gone through the complaint lodged by the petitioner himself so also his evidence recorded before the trial court. Perusal of this complaint so also the evidence of the petitioner, nowhere discloses that there is doubt in his mind that the death of his son is a homicidal death and accordingly he has lodged the complaint and has raised suspicion that the accused are responsible for the death of his son, however, the IO has not conducted investigation to that effect. If it is not contention of the complainant nor it is stated by him on oath before the trial court, it cannot be said that the investigation is not carried out by the Investigating Officer, as per the the facts disclosed in the complaint. Thus, it is crystal clear that the {6} CWP No.260/2011 investigation has been carried out as per the discloser of facts made by the petitioner in the complaint. If the investigation has been carried out as per the disclosure made in the complaint, then I do not find any fault in the investigation, which requires to be re- investigated either by the same agency or through some other agency. Once it is concluded that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no re-investigation is necessary, then I do not think it appropriate even to discuss as to whether there is any legal bar to direct reinvestigation at this stage or not. Without dilating on the aspect as to whether reinvestigation is permissible at this stage or nor, I am of the view that in the light of the above discussion no case is made out to direct reinvestigation. Thus, I do not find any fault in the impugned order, which requires interference. 7. In the result, the petition, which is sans merits, stands dismissed. Trial court is directed to expedite the hearing of Sessions Case No.20/2010. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B11/cwp260-11