- 1 - rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.100 OF 2010 Mrs Neelam Shewale represented by C.A.B.S.Rath ... Petitioner vs The State of Maharashtra & ors ... Respondents Mr.B.S.Rath C.A.of Petitioner present Ms.S.D.Shinde A.P.P.for Respondents CORAM: SMT.RANJANA DESAI & SMT.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATED: 9th March, 2010 P.C. 1. We have heard Mr.Rath Power of Attorney holder of petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner is the Power of Attorney holder of one Mrs.Neelam Shewale. In this petition the petitioner has inter alia prayed that F.I.R. No.45 of 2009 and F.I.R. No.123 of 2008 be transferred for investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The petitioner has also prayed that this court may call for the records of F.I.R.No.123 of 2008 and initiate an inquiry about tampering of court records. The complainant in these cases is Mrs.Neelam Shewale. - 2 - 3. The petitioner had earlier filed Criminal Writ Petition No.2301 of 2009. On 17th November, 2009 counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. were heard by the Bench presided over by Justice Patel. Dr.Suresh Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Solapur (Rural) was present along with the Investigating Officer. The Court perused the case diary. A statement was made by A.P.P. on seeking instructions from Superintendent of Police, Solapur (Rural) that investigation in C.R.No.45 of 2009 would be handed over to the S.D.P.O. Pandharpur Region i.e. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mr.Pramod E.Honrao for further investigation. In view of this statement made by learned A.P.P. the court observed that grievance of the petitioner will be looked into as a Senior Officer is to be entrusted with investigation of the case. The court directed S.D.P.O. Pandharpur Region, to carry out investigation afresh without being influenced by earlier investigation. The court also observed that transfer of this investigation to the Dy.Superintendent of Police would sufficiently meet the grievances of the petitioner. Now the petitioner wants the investigation to be transferred to the Central Bureau of investigation. For such a transfer indeed a very strong case will have to be made out. We must note that investigation was transferred on 18th November, 2009 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and from 18th November, 2009 till date not a - 3 - single statement of the petitioner Mrs.Neelam Shewale has been recorded. The case of the police is that the petitioner is not cooperating with the police. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that she is dissatisfied with the investigation carried out by Deputy Superintendent of Police. Since the petitioner has not allowed her statement to be recorded the Dy.Superintendent of Police has obviously no clues on the basis of which he can carry on effective investigation. Had the petitioner allowed the police to record her statement and then police had failed to investigate on the basis of clues offered by her perhaps she would have been justified in making such a request but, certainly without allowing the police to record her statement, she cannot come to the court and say that investigation be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation. 4. Mr.Rath, Power of Attorney holder of petitioner Mrs Neelam Shewale informs us that police have never called Mrs.Neelam Shewale to record her statement. This is disputed by learned A.P.P. He submitted that Mrs.Shewale was called to the police station but, she did not attend the police station. When we asked Mr.Rath to respond to this he stated that under Criminal Procedure Code woman should not be called for recording statement in the police station. We therefore, told Mr.Rath that we will ensure that Mrs Neelam Shewele’s statement is recorded at - 4 - some independent place and not at the police station. We asked him whether she would agree to this arrangement. There was no response to this. We expected Mr.Rath to immediately make a statement that on appointed date and time Mrs.Neelam Shewale will go to the agreed place for recording her statement. Such a willingness is not shown. We are not all satisfied with the conduct of the petitioner. Grievance made about the investigating agency is not justified. No case is made out for transfer of the case to Central Bureau of Investigation. Hence, the petition is dismissed. SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J SMT.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J - 5 -