1 wp-1506-10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 1506 of 2010 Gurunath Dattu Kambhar .. Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors .. Respondents. Mr Ghanshyam Upadhya with Mr A.Y.Pandule i/b M/s Law Juris for the Petitioner. Mr D.P. Adsule, A.P.P.for the State. CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 8TH FEBRUARY,2011. P.C.:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P.for the State. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is about the inaction of the local police in investigating the offence in question. 2 wp-1506-10.doc During the course of argument, however, the counsel appearing for the petitioner was at pains to persuade us that the petitioner has also made allegations against the concerned police officers for doing partisan investigation. Insofar as the latter allegation is concerned, the averments in the petition in our opinion are vague. These averments are, however, insufficient to indicate material facts to constitute allegations of mala fide exercise of power by the concerned police officer. Besides, no police officer has been impleaded as respondent by name. If it is so, it is well established position that such allegation cannot be looked into. In other words, the only grievance that needs to be addressed in this petition is about the inaction of the local police in investigating the case. Insofar as this grievance is concerned we are in agreement with the stand taken by the learned A.P.P.that this grievance is after thought and without any substance. We say so, because after the alleged incident took place, on 25.2.2010, at the request of the petitioner, the investigation was transferred to 3 wp-1506-10.doc Bhivandi Taluka Police Station on 8th April, 2010. It is the Bhivandi Taluka Police Station who was responsible for the investigation and not the local police station i.e. Padgha Police Station. 3. In other words, the grievance regarding inaction of the local police station is devoid of merits. As a matter of fact, after the investigation was transferred to Bhivandi Police Station on 8th April, 2010, the concerned Investigating Officer examined in all 23 witnesses whose statements have been recorded by him. It is on the basis of investigation done by him, he proceeded to file police report under Section 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 24.5.2010. The petitioner has rushed to this Court in the interregnum on 6.5.2010. When the petition was filed there was no reason for the petitioner to doubt the credentials of officials of Bhivandi Police Station so as to make allegations about inaction of the Investigating Officer. At the time, when this petition was presented on 6.5.2010, no such material was forthcoming. The 4 wp-1506-10.doc petition has been extensively amended on 19.11.2010. Even if we were to consider the amended petition, in our opinion, the allegations are too general and vague which are not good enough to doubt the integrity of the Investigating Officer who has investigated the case and who filed police report before the concerned Court on 24.5.2010. As a matter of fact, the Investigating Officer while filing the police report has made it clear that he would exercise the powers under section 173 (8) of the Code if further evidence was forthcoming. We, therefore, called upon the Counsel for the petitioner to indicate the names of other witnesses, who, in his opinion, should be examined by the Investigating Officer. The Counsel refused to disclose the names of any other witness and submits that it is the job of the I.O.to find out the names of witnesses. Unless the petitioner has any further material to strengthen the prosecution case, we cannot entertain the grievance of the petitioner that the Investigating Officer has failed to perform his job. It is not enough for the petitioner to 5 wp-1506-10.doc make unsubstantiated grievance that the Investigating Officer ought to have examined some other persons, as well. Unless some witnesses were available to give statements to the I.O. and if he were to refuse recording of their statements the situation would be different. In that case, we could have accepted the grievance of the petitioner that it is not only a case of inaction of the I.O. but investigation done by him is partisan. In our opinion, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out. 4. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that even when there is slightest of allegation against the I.O., it is the duty of the Court to intervene and transfer the investigation to an independent investigating agency. For that, he wanted to rely on two decisions of the Apex Court. Needless to observe that the principle enunciated by the Apex Court in the reported decisions could have been relevant if the petitioner were to make some tangible case at least prima facie so as to transfer the investigation to an independent agency. We are of the considered view that in 6 wp-1506-10.doc the fact situation on the present case no interference is warranted. Hence, writ petition is devoid of merits. The same is dismissed. (A. R. JOSHI, J) (A. M. KHANWILKAR,J)