CHETAN BHIKHABHAI RATHOD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Shri M.R.Mengde, learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, this matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner original complainant has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and/or order directing the respondents to transfer the investigation of complaint / FIR being I CR No.54 of 2007 registered with Tharad Police Station dated 25.5.2007 to C.I.D. Crime or any other independent agency with the direction to complete the investigation within scheduled time and/or directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to carry on investigation directly or to appoint any other independent agency other than Tharad to carry out the detail investigation under the supervision of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and to arrest the accused.

(3.) It is the case on behalf of the petitioner original informant original complainant that his daughter Parvatiben (now deceased) got married with one Buchiya Varjanbhai Lavabhai and sister of Varjangbhai got married with Pravin (brother of deceased) in Sata System on 27.11.2005. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that deceased Parvatiben came to her parental house and informed that her husband and in-laws i.e. mother-in-law and sister-in-law are physically torturing her. That in the month of May 2007, deceased Parvatiben telephonically called her mother and informed that her husband Varjangbhai and mother-in-law and sister-in-law had beaten her mercilessly and stated that they want to kill her. That one Parbatbhai (maternal uncle of deceased) telephonically informed the petitioner that the husband Varjang, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased Parvatiben have killed her by beating her mercilessly and forcefully administering poisonous drug. It is further case on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner and other relatives reached to Tharad and saw dead body of the deceased Parvatiben and they found number of injury marks on the dead body. That the petitioner reported to the police on 27.5.2005 for registering the complaint but the Tharad Police Station refused to register the complaint under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and forced the petitioner to give complaint in terms that is Investigating Agency a case of suicide or accidental death and the petitioner refused to do so. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that as the P.S.I., Tharad Police Station refused to register the complaint, the petitioner and his relatives telephonically talked to the D.S.P., Banaskantha and office of the D.I.G., Kutch Range who in turn telephonically instructed the Dy.S.P., Deodar to register the complaint in terms that the petitioner is disclosing before the authority and only thereafter, the complaint of the petitioner was registered before Dy.S.P., Deodar as I Cr No.54 of 2007 of Tharad Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 302, 498(A) & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that even the Medical Officers were also acted in hand in gloves with the offenders and the subordinate police staffs of the Tharad Police Station and therefore the petitioner gave application to the P.S.I., Tharad to take appropriate action against the Medical Officers, however, no acknowledgement was given. That on 16.6.2007 the petitioner gave application to the D.S.P., Banaskantha to issue direction to arrest the absconding offenders but no action was taken. That according to the petitioner, the petitioner gave one application dated 17.6.2007 to the S.P./P.S.I., informing that the police staff are shielding the real offenders and not issuing direction to arrest the absconding offenders, however, still no action was taken. As per the petitioner, the petitioner gave complaint on 17.6.2007 itself to the P.S.I., Tharad and gave full particulars and details of the persons who are knowing about the alleged crime but no action was taken. That on 1.7.2007 the complainant's son Pravinbhai Rathod gave an application to D.S.P., Banaskantha to arrest the real culprit. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner made a detailed representation to the Hon'ble Home Minister on 6.7.2007 with a copy to the different authorities, still no action was taken. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that application for anticipatory bail of the absconding offenders were rejected by the learned Sessions Court on 2.7.2007 and thereafter by this Court still the accused persons were not arrested. It is further submitted that inspite of repeated requests, no investigation was carried out even towards the role of the police staff of Tharad Police Station or the Doctors who have performed post mortem and gave the report that no external injury marks are shown. It is submitted that the statement of the independent persons knowing about the crime are also not recorded and that is how, the police authorities are trying to cripple the case and therefore, the petitioner original complainant has preferred the present petition for the aforesaid reliefs.