SANGEETA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally. By the present writ petition, the petitioner prays that the investigation being carried by the present respondents No. 2 and 3 i.e. the P.S.I. of Mukundwadi Police Station and Assistant Commissioner of Police, CIDCO Division in the complaint filed by her, be withdrawn and the same may be transferred to respondent No. 4 i.e. the Director General of Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.).

(2.) The husband of the deceased went missing since 29.6.2007. According to her, missing person, namely Rajkishor was serving as a body-guard of one Rajkumar Dhoot. Said Rajkumar Dhoot is engaged in some business activities which are not in consonance with the public policies. The deceased had smelled something foul. In the circumstances, said Rajkumar Dhoot suspended the husband of the petitioner on 19.4.2007. When enquiry was made with said Rajkumar Dhoot, the husband of the petitioner was asked to meet his Personal Assistant, namely, Karim Baig. When again, enquiry was made with said Karim Baig, the husband of the petitioner was asked to meet him alongwith Dinesh Gange i.e. another employee of Rajkumar Dhoot. In the circumstances, on 29.6.2007, the husband of the petitioner, upon receipt of the phone call from the office of Rajkumar Dhoot on his cell, went with said Dinesh Gange at about 4 p.m. Since then, the husband of the petitioner has gone missing. In the circumstances, after waiting for 24 hours and after receiving the vague answers from Karim Baig, Dinesh Gange and Rajkumar Dhoot, she lodged complaint with respondent No. 2.

(3.) The learned A.P.P., however, opposed the writ petition. He submits that the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad would show that the Commissioner of Police has now personally perused the case papers. The Assistant Commissioner of Police was directed to conduct inquiry whereupon the Assistant Commissioner of Police has recorded the statement of the complainant i.e. the present petitioner and also the statements of the suspects. He came to the conclusion that the Investigating Officer had carried proper investigation and submitted the report to the deponent i.e. the Commissioner of Police. The deponent had also assured that the investigation in the missing complaint would be continued. In the circumstances, it was submitted that the writ petition be dismissed.