ANIL GANJIDHAR PAWAR Vs. VIJAYA TUKARAM CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition, thereby praying for quashing and setting aside the order dtd. 24/4/2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhule, in Criminal Revision Application No. 18 of 2025, confirming the order dtd. 13/3/2025, passed below Exhibit 252 in Regular Criminal Case No. 185 of 2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Court No. 3), Dhule.

(2.) The petitioner, appearing in person, submits that he is the informant in Crime No. 73 of 2014, registered with Deopur Police Station, District Dhule, on 27/4/2014, for the offences punishable under Ss. 452, 147, 149, 323, 504, 506, 336 and 427 of the IPC. He submits that a preliminary investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer, who conducted the spot panchnama and seizure panchnama, and recorded the statements of witnesses, including the present applicant and the wife of the informant as an eye witness. It is further submitted that the investigation was thereafter transferred to another Investigating Officer, who failed to record the statements of the neighbours of the informant, which has resulted in the weakening of the informant's case. The petitioner -informant, therefore, submits that as the case requires further investigation, an application was moved by him under Sec. 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., seeking a direction to Deopur Police Station to conduct further investigation and submit its report before this Court.

(3.) The application was opposed by the accused persons by filing their say, wherein they stated that the charge-sheet was filed in the year 2015 and that the informant had, at that time, obtained permission from the Court to conduct the matter in person. Thus, the informant was aware of the collection of evidence and recording of the statements of the witnesses since the year 2015, and as such, the present application, filed after a lapse of 10 years, cannot now be allowed to fill up the lacuna. It was further contended that the matter is time-bound by the Hon'ble High Court and that the present application has been filed only with an intention to prolong the proceedings. The Court has already examined the witnesses cited by the prosecution. The Investigating Officer in his deposition has also submitted that there is no lacuna left in the prosecution case. Any further investigation, if allowed, would amount to filling up the lacuna. Hence, the said application deserves to be rejected.