1 wp1653.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Writ Petition No. 1653 of 2010 Anil Vasant Chavan ..Petitioner v/s. Inspector of Police & ors. ..Respondents Pangri Police Station, Solapur. Mr. S.M. Marwadi i/b. Vinayak V. Katti – advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Avinash Kamkhedkar – advocate for respondent no. 4. Mr. D. P. Adsule – APP for the State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ DATED :- NOVEMBER 18, 2010. P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. By this Petition it is prayed that direction be issued to the 2 wp1653.10.sxw Respondents to register separate case against PSI Khade and two other constables of Pangri Police Station for offence punishable under Section 306 on the assertion that the Petitioner’s father committed suicide because he was threatened to be falsely implicated in commission of offence under NARCOTIC Act. It is a matter of record that allegation made by the Petitioner was enquired into by the CID and enquiry thereof was entrusted to Police Inspector - Kashinath Kesu Rathod who in turn has recorded statements of several persons and collected material including the statement of Shivganga Limba Chavan – mother of the deceased (Grandmother of the Petitioner) and Tulsabai Vasant Chavan – wife of deceased (mother of the Petitioner). Both of them have consistently stated in the respective statements that when the police Authority visited, they did not physically assault the deceased nor threatened him or for that matter demanded any money from him. Besides they have conceded that there are pending disputes between the family of Babu Digambar Ghavte and son of deceased’s sister as well with the Society. Both of them have stated that the police to investigate the matter on the basis of dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate. 3. This fact is asserted in the additional affidavit filed before us on 5th 3 wp1653.10.sxw October, 2010 of Kashinath Kesu Rathod – Police Inspector, CID, Solapur Unit, Solapur. No rejoinder has been filed much less to counter the assertion made in the affidavit and more so of persons who have given statement contrary to the stand of the Petitioner. There is no reason as to why the statement of these two persons in particular, who were present at the scene of offence, should be overlooked. The case made out in the said statements clearly goes against the stand of the Petitioner. 4. Accordingly, this Petition is devoid of merits. The same is dismissed. (A.P.BHANGALE, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)