: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1674 OF 2009 Ramchandra Shahu Bhosale .. Petitioner v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents ........ Mr. Balasaheb Deshmukh for petitioner. Mr. A.S. Gadkari, APP for State. ........ CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. Dated : 27th November, 2009. P.C. : 1. We have heard Mr. Deshmukh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner who is a practicing advocate at Mohol, Dist. Solapur. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for (a) directions to transfer FIR 112/09 registered with the Mohol Police Station for investigation. (b) Initiate departmental inquiry / Criminal prosecutions against respondent Nos.2,3 and 4. : 2 : 2. So far as the first relief is concerned, Shri. Gajanan H. Jadhav, Police Sub-Inspector attached to Mohol Police station filed an affidavit in reply on 28th July, 2009. This Court in its order dated 11.9.2009 directed the incharge of Police Station, Mohol to remin present with the case diary and subsequently on 17.9.2009, this Court expressed its dis-satisfaction with the investigation done till that date. However, the learned APP had assured the Court that the investigation would be conducted in a proper manner and hence 2 weeks time was granted. 3. The I.O. is present before us today. Mr. Gadkari, the learned APP on instructions states that on 05.11.2009 the chargesheet for the offences punishable u/s. 307, 395 of IPC has been filed in RCC No.314/09 in the Court of the JMFC, Mohol, Dist. Solapur. A copy of the said chargesheet has been placed before us and we have noted that statements of 15 witnesses have been recorded and in addition, about 3 medical officers’ statements have been recorded. The Medical Certificates issued by 3 different hospitals have also been placed along with the chargesheet. We, therefore, do not find any case to transfer the investigation to any other agency, when the chargesheet has already been filed. 4. So far as the 2nd prayer regarding directions to take action against : 3 : respondent Nos.2 to 4 is concerned, admittedly, the offence has taken place in the agricultural land of the petitioner located at village Patkul, Tal. Mohol, Dist. Solapur and, therefore, respondent No.2, the Commissioner of Police, Solapur has no concern with the investigation. Respondent No.2 is claimed to be the Senior Police Inspector of Mohol Police Station and respondent No.4 is claimed to the Police Patil of Patkul village. 5. In the affidavit filed by Shri Gajanan Jadhav, it has been pointed out that the incident had taken place on 05.6.2009 at about 11.00 a.m. and the petitioner along with his younger brother Mr. Yurvraj Bhosale had visited Mohol Police station. The police station officer Shri. Mujawar prepared yadi / letter and sent the petitioner for medical treatment to the Rural Hospital at Mohol. He did not return to the Police station. The petitioner was admitted to the Rural Hospital and his wounds were sutured and he was referred to the Civil Hospital, Solapur at about 3.00 p.m. On 5.6.2009, the petitioner got himself admitted at Civil Hospital, Solapur and he remained there till about 4.00 to 5.00 p.m. He obtained discharge from the Civil Hospital and got admitted himself at Dhanarajgiri Charitable Hospital and Research Centre, Solapur at about 5.00 p.m. and the said Hospital sent intimation to the Sadar Bazar Police station, Solapur : 4 : city. Mr. B.D. Waghmare, Asst. Sub-Inspector attached to the Sadar Bazar Police station visited Dhanarajgiri Charitable Hospital and Research Centre, Solapur and recorded that statement of the petitioner. Station diary Entry No.40/09 was taken on 5.6.2009 at 9.45 p.m. and C.R. No.212 of 2009 was registered at 4.30 p.m. for the offence punishable u/s. 395 r/w. section 34 of IPC. On 7.6.2009, the investigation was handed over to Shri. Gajanan Jadhav by the Police Station officer at about 5.00 p.m. He effected spot panchanama and recorded the statement of Shri Dadarao Mali who was the employee of the petitioner in this case. On 8.6.2009, the IO tried to record the statement of the petitioner but the petitioner was not feeling well and, therefore, his wife’s statement was recorded. Three of the accused came to be arrested on 05.7.2009 but for quite some time the other 2 accused had absconded and subsequently they succeeded in obtaining anticipatory bail. 6. The details provided in the affidavit filed by the IO do not make out any case for departmental inquiry against respondent Nos.3 and 4 and, therefore, the 2nd prayer cannot be considered. 7. As the investigation has been completed and the chargesheet has been filed, nothing further survives in this petition and the petition is : 5 : disposed as such without prejudice to the rights of the parties before the trial Court. [R.Y.GANOO, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.]