HARISH K.NAGDA Vs. SR INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-complainant has filed this petition seeking direction that the investigation carried out by the Juhu Police Station Authority in connection with the offence registered vide C.R.No. 321 of 1993 be transferred to Detention of Crime Branch, C.I.D. Bombay and the said Investigating Agency be directed to carry out further investigation in respect of the complaint filed by the Petitioner in accordance with law and further prayed that the respondent No.1 viz. Juhu Police Station Authority be directed not to file charge sheet in respect of crime registered no.321 of 1993 in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri.

(2.) IN the petition, the petitioner has narrated that on 18th November 1991, the Petitioner married to respondent No.5 Smt. Meena Harish Nagda and out of the said wed-lock, on 15th July 1992, daughter named Jasmin was born. It is the case of the petitioner that after the birth of the child, respondent No.5 was picking up the quarrel with the Petitioner and other family members. In respect of incident which took place on 20th June 1992, the younger sister of the Petitioner Pramila had lodged complaint at Juhu Police Station which was registered vide C.R.No.321 of 1993 for offences under sections 454 and 380 of the I.P.C. It is also highlighted in the petition that thereafter the Petitioner had issued letter in favour of the Senior Inspector, Social Security Branch ((C.I.D.)) on 2nd August 1993 with regard to the conduct of respondent no.5. Again on 2nd December 1993, the petitioner had sent letter to Senior Inspector of Police, Juhu Police Station respondent No.1 herein, requesting to take the suitable action against the respondent No.5 and thereafter on 11th January 1994, the petitioner had written letter to Asstt. Commissioner of Police, Bandra Division Bandra to take suitable action against the respondent No.5 according to law. Even thereafter, the petitioner has from time to time requested the Police authority to take legal action against the respondent No.5. Earlier on 24th November 1994 the petitioner through Advocate, requested the respondent no.3 viz. Commissioner of Police for Greater Bombay requesting him to transfer the investigation in favour of the (C.I.D.). On 17th December 1994, Smt. Meena respondent No.5 had lodged a complaint against the Petitioner and his family members for the offence punishable under sections 324, 325 of the I.P.C. The Petitioner and his mother, elder married sister connected with the said offences were granted bail on 18th December 1994 and the Social Service Branch (C.I.D.). has recorded statements of the petitioner and his sisters and mother. It is also highlighted in the petition that on 8th August 1996, Police has arrested respondent No.5 and she was released on bail on 4th August 1996. At the time of arrest of the respondent No.5, Panchanama was carried out in the house in which the Petitioner and his family members resided till 17th December, 1994. It is the case of the Petitioner that cup board was removed and several valuable articles were removed from the said cupboard and on 3rd August 1996, the Petitioner has reported this fact to the notice of respondent No.1 and requested him to investigate his complaint. According to the Petitioner that investigation was not properly conducted and the Petitioner was denied justice and hence, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the relief for transfer of his case. The Petitioner has annexed several documents attached to this petition including the complaint dated 26th June 1993 registered vide C.R.No.321 of 1993. Affidavit in reply is filed by Lalasaheb Vithoba Shete, Police Sub Inspector attached to Juhu Police Station wherein, in paragraph 13 he has stated, which reads as under :

(3.) IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that though the petition was amended by introducing the ground 10-A without giving an opportunity to the Petitioner the police had submitted report and the Court has passed the orders on 22nd July 1997 and 24th July 1997. Without entering into the merits of the matter and as transpired that during the pendency of the above petition, and as per the statement made by the learned Public Prosecutor, the report was to be submitted before the competent Court and the complaint Court was required to consider the said report and decide the same in accordance with law. As no opportunity was given to the petitioner, inspite of the fact that the petition was pending before this Court. Accordingly, without expressing anything on the merits of the matter, the orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 44th Court, Andheri, dated 22nd July, 1997 and 24th July 1997 are set aside. Investigating Agency and the Petitioner to remain present before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 44th Court, Andheri Bombay on 8th December 1997 and learned Magistrate is directed to decide the report submitted by the Investigating agency in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the respondents. Petition is accordingly disposed of.