Rohidas Gangadhar Deokar v. The State Of Maharashtra

Digitally signed by SHAGUFTA QUTBUDDIN PATHAN Date:

2025.02.17 12:05:05 +0530 SHAGUFTA QUTBUDDIN PATHAN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2174 OF 2024 Rohidas Gangadhar Deokar ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents Mr. Rokade Narayan Gopinath a/w Mr. Udaysinh Deshmukh, Mr. Siddharth R. Ghodke, Mr. Hrishikesh Korhale, Mr. Abhang Suryawanshi, Mr. Harishchandra Jadhav and Mr. Vikrant Kadam for the Petitioner Mrs. P. P. Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent-State ASI Mr. Sachin Namdeo Patil from Ale Phata Police Station, Pune Rural, is present CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

WEDNESDAY, 12 th FEBRUARY 2025 P.C :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent-police to consider the representation of the petitioner 1/4

and to conduct fresh investigation in C.R. No. 353/2022 registered with the Ale Phata Police Station, Pune Rural. The petitioner also seeks action against the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation of the said C.R.

Perused the papers including the F.I.R registered at the behest of Shraddha Deokar's husband, Goraksh, who was allegedly assaulted by four persons. Accordingly, an FIR was registered as against several persons, however, the complainant has mentioned in her statement the names of Shivaji, Shubham, Sujit and Suman. Although some other accused were named, the police, during the course of the investigation, did not find any material against the said persons, and hence, they were not charge-sheeted. Only three persons were charge-sheeted i.e. Shivaji Padhir, Shubham Padhir and Suman Padhir. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the other persons were involved, the said 2/4

accused have not been arrested or charge-sheeted. He further submit that at the time of registration of the F.I.R, offence under Section 307 was disclosed and mentioned in the F.I.R, however, at the time of filing of charge-sheet, the police deleted Section 307 and instead, filed charge-sheet under Section 324 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that the complainant's husband, Goraksh was assaulted with a koyta on his head and that although the injury was simple, the police ought to have added Section 307 of the IPC, keeping in mind the intention of the assailants.

Learned A.P.P, on instructions, states that the police, after examining the CDRs and the statements of witnesses, have filed charge-sheet only against three persons. She further states that since charge-sheet has been filed for the offence punishable under Section 324 and for other sections, at this stage, it is not possible to add Section 307. Learned A.P.P, however, submits that at the time of framing of charge, the prosecution will file 3/4

an appropriate application for adding Section 307 to the charge. Statement accepted. If an application is filed, the learned Magistrate to decide the same on its own merits. In view of the aforesaid, nothing survives for further consideration in the petition. Petition is disposed of. As far as action against the police officer is concerned, it is open for the petitioner to take appropriate steps before the appropriate forum against the said officer, in accordance with law.

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. 4/4