← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/1706/2016dismissed

Shashikala R. Singh W/O Ram Kumar Singh v. State Of Maharashtra And ORS

2023-09-01Hon'Ble Shri Justice Nitin W. Sambre,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Rajesh S. Patil2 pages

ANANT KRISHNA NAIK by ANANT KRISHNA NAIK Date: 2023.09.06 17:54:48 +0530 1/2 30.WP.1706.2016.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1706 OF 2016 Shashikala R. Singh w/o. Ram Kumar Singh ... Petitioner V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

... Respondent Mr. Sanjiv Punalekar i/b. PRS Legal for Petitioner. Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for Respondent-State.

None for the Respondent No. 2.

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE & RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ DATED :

1st SEPTEMBER, 2023 P.C.:

1.

The prayer is for quashing of the FIR being Crime No. I80/2016 registered with Kolsewadi Police Station punishable u/s. 354, 324, 143, 147, 148 & 427 r/w. 37(1) of the IPC and u/s 135 of Maharashtra Police Act.

2.

The further prayer which is deleted is, transfer the investigation to State CID or to the superior ofÏcer. It is also claimed that there has to be an inquiry in the lapses and irregularities.

3.

The fact remains that the Petitioner has already deleted the prayer clauses (b) and (c) which reads thus:

(b) In the alternative this Hon'ble Court be pleased to akn 1/2

2/2 30.WP.1706.2016.doc entrust both these F.I.Rs to state C.I.D. or to a superior ofÏcer of police for investigation and filing final report after an expeditious investigation.

(c) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct respondent no. 2 to inquire into the lapses and irregularities on the part of the Kolsewadi P.S. in investigation into the two F.I.Rs and to take necessary remedial action including but not limited to applying relevant sections as per facts of the case, taking entire evidence including medical records and CCTV footage on record etc.

4.

As such, as regards the issue of lapses and inquiry therein, the claim is already given up by the Petitioner. 5.

The perusal of the FIR, prima facie discloses a cognizable offence.

6.

In that view of the matter, in our opinion no further indulgence is called for and as such, the Petition stands dismissed. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) akn 2/2