Per KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.: - Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forth with. The learned Advocates for the respondents waive service. 2. The petitioner in this petition has approached this Court with the grievance about inaction on the part of the respondents/police authorities in conducting necessary investigation and not taking appropriate action against the offender / s responsible for the death of her daughter and hence, for necessary directions and relief in the matter. 3. The petitioner is the resident of Sandesh Nagar, Shanti Wadi, Bail BaZar, Kurla (West), Mumbai for about last 25 years along with her family which comprised of her two daughters and husband. One of the daughters is stated to have expired on 17 -1- 2006 in suspicious circumstances. The deceased girl was named Yasmin and was studying in 10th standard and was punctual in attending the school. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that one boy by name Deepak used to encourage and incite the deceased Yasmin to meet one Umesh Yallapa Arote under one pretext or another as allegedly the said Umesh had one sided love affair with the said daughter of the petitioner. Said Umesh used to visit the neighbours of the petitioner and used to approach the daughter of the petitioner Yasmiri through one of the neighbouring girl named Sunita Naresh Poojari. It is her further case that being unsuccessful in wooing the daughter of the petitioner, sqid Umesh used to give threats to the deceased daughter of the petitioner and had even warned her that in case she failed to marry him, he would not spare her and the person to whom she would marry. Consequently, Yasmin was always under tension and stress on account of the said threat by Umesh. Of late he had also started demanding money from the deceased girl and she was forced to part with her gold chain of 15 grams to him. It is her further case that on 16-1-2006 at about 2:00 a.m., during early hours of the said day while the girl was studying at her residence, Umesh came to the site and started pulling her outside the house. It is her further case that on 16-1-2006 at about 2:00 a.m., during early hours of the said day while the girl was studying at her residence, Umesh came to the site and started pulling her outside the house. However, he did not succeed in his evil design as he was obstructed from doing so by the petitioner and he was handed over to the neighbours' custody while she - went to report the matter to the Alapure - Beat Chowky No.5 of the Kurla Police Station and informed the matter to the police - authorities about the harassment caused by Umesh to her daughter. However, the f police refused to record the complaint and directed her to go to the Bail Bazar Chowky. Even when she went to the Bail Bazar Chowky, the police refused to register the complaint and directed her to go back to i Alapure Beat Chowky. The petitioner there upon went to the main Kurla Police Station 1 and could succeed in lodging N.C. complaint being N.C. No. 132/2006, dated 16-1-2006. Meanwhile, Umesh managed to run away and the police expressed inability and helplessness to apprehend him. 5. On 17-1-2006 one person by name Ganesh Galshetwar approached the deceased girl with a mobile phone belonging to Umesh and informed, the deceased girl to speak to UIDesh with the help of the said mobile phone as Umesh wanted to speak to her. The deceased girl thereupon had conversation with Umesh with the help of the said phone, as was asked to do by Ganesh and immediately thereafter, being scared and frightened, ran inside the house and poured kerosene on her body and set herself ablaze. Though the petitioner thereafter approached the police authorities, the latter refused to record the complaint. Ultimately, the petitioner succeeded in submitting a written complaint on 2-6-2006 to the Commissioner of Police, Additional Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Assistant Commissioner of Police and the respondent No.6 herein bringing to their notice all the necessary facts in the matter and requesting them to take necessary action. However, since the respondents have not conducted necessary investigation and have not taken appropriate steps to apprehend and prosecute the culprit in the matter, the petitioner has approached this Court. 6. However, since the respondents have not conducted necessary investigation and have not taken appropriate steps to apprehend and prosecute the culprit in the matter, the petitioner has approached this Court. 6. At this stage it is to be noted that the petition was initially filed against the State of Maharashtra, the Commissioner of Police, Additional Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Senior Inspector of Police of the Kurla Police Station and Police Sub-Inspector attached to the Kurla Police Station and the said Umesh. When the matter came up for hearing for admission on 13-6-2007, after hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7; this Court (Coram: Smt. Ranjana P. Desai and D.B. Bhosale, JJ.) observed that according to the petitioner the police had failed to investigate the case properly and have purposely shielded the accused Umesh and registered a case of accidental death. On perusal of the records, it was observed that the statement of Kausar Bano, which was recorded by the police, primafacie indicates that Umesh had subjected the deceased to emotional blackmail and it was, therefore, necessary for the investigating agency to conduct the investigation in proper perspective. It was also observed that the dying declarations prima facie did not satisfactorily disclose to be genuine and therefore the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-V, Mumbai was required to look into the matter himself again. Accordingly, direction was issued to the Deputy Commissioner of Police to conduct fresh inquiry, if necessary, and to submit report. The report came to be submitted on 18-7-2007. However, in the course of the hearing, it was revealed that the inquiry was not conducted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police but by the Assistant Commissioner of Police which was contrary to the order dated 13-6-2007 and therefore when the I matter came up for hearing on 5-9-2007, the learned A.P.P., on taking instructions, stated that the report submitted earlier; could be allowed to be withdrawn in order to enable to conduct proper inquiry by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. Accordingly, time was granted and the report dated 6-10-2007 in respect of the inquiry conducted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police was submitted to this Court on 10-10- J 2007. Accordingly, time was granted and the report dated 6-10-2007 in respect of the inquiry conducted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police was submitted to this Court on 10-10- J 2007. When the matter came up for hearing on 5-12-2007, on perusal of the report It was found that the same disclosed a clear finding by the Deputy Commissioner of Poe lice that the Senior Inspector of Police Shri Dilip Shivram Yadav, who was the concerned officer in-charge of the investigation n at the relevant time, did not give proper d guidance in the course of the investigation d to his subordinates nor he perused the papers of the investigation and did not pay any attention to the doubts expressed by " the petitioner and the petitioner's family about the involvement of the respondent No. 8 in the death of Yasmin and in a negligent e manner concluded that the death was accidental and got the summary report approved. It was also seen that the Deputy Commissioner of Police had conclusively " observed in the report in relation to ADR - No. 12/2006 that the entire investigation was in a negligent manner. Considering the - same, it was inquired with the learned A.P.P. - as to why the appropriate disciplinary action has not been taken against the concerned officers? It was also brought to the notice by the Advocate for the petitioner that the records revealed the acts on the part of - four Police Officers, namely, Shri Murad Abdul Mulani, PSI, Shri Vishwanath Tanaji Tambe, PSI, Shri Dilip Shivram Yadav, PI and Shri Uttam Chopane, Asst. Commissioner of Police, amounting to offences in 1 the nature of issuing and signing false reports, giving false information to screen the ~ offender and helping the offender to cause r to disappear material evidence of the offence, which would warrant prosecution r under sections 197, 201 and 203 of the Indian Penal Code r/w the other provisions , thereof as well as under section 145(2)(c) , and (d) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 - against the said officers and mere disciplinary proceedings would not be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Though the contention was sought to be disputed on behalf of the respondents, on perusal of the records and after perusing the decisions of the Apex Court in the matter (Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Though the contention was sought to be disputed on behalf of the respondents, on perusal of the records and after perusing the decisions of the Apex Court in the matter (Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore and ors.j1, reported in 1979 DGLS (soft) 449: 1980(1) S.C.C. 71: A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 346, (Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P., Indore Vs. M/s. Bombay General Stores, Shahdo~2, reported in A.I.R. 1969 M.P. 213 and (P.K. Varghese & Sons Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, Emaculam)3, reported in A.I.R. 1965 Ker. 212 and on going through the entire record, I it was observed that the records disclose I that the concerned Police Officers were entrusted with the duty to investigate into the matter which related to the death of a young girl in suspicious circumstances and inspite of suspicion about the involvement of a particular person being clearly pointed out to the concerned Police Officers, it was totally ignored and there was no satisfactory explanation placed on record in that regard, even though an affidavit was filed by one of the concerned Senior Police Officers. The records apparently also disclose that the police had merely proceeded on the basis of I the alleged dying declarations of Yasmin and in that regard under the order dated 13-62007 it was already observed by this Court that the alleged dying declarations do not appear to be genuine. In fact, it was also observed that there was no reason for inaction on the part of the Police Officers to investigate into the matter about the doubt: which was expressed by the petitioner and her family members, nor there was any explanation forthcoming in that regard and in that view of the matter, the said four Police Officers were permitted to be joined as the respondents and the notices were issued to the said respondents pursuant to which PI Dilip Shivram Yadav, the respondent No.9, PSIS Vishwanath Tanaji Tambe, , the respondent No. 10 and Murad Abdul Mulani, the respondent No. 11 have filed their affidavits in reply. 7. 7. It is the case of the respondents that on 17-1-2006, in the afternoon hours, the Station House Officer on duty i.e., the respondent No. 11, received an information from the Lokmanya Tilak Hospital, Sion, Mumbai that a girl by name Yasmin Babu Shaikh, aged about 18 years, had been admitted in the hospital with severe burn in juries and he accordingly made the necessary entries in the station diary and rushed to the hospital. The concerned officer then e recorded the dying declaration of the said, Yasmin Babu Shaikh after verifying from the Medical officer that the patient was in a condition to give statement and the mother of the deceased, namely, the petitioner was - present at the time of recording of the statement. In her statement, the deceased had stated that she had appeared for her unit e test examination on 16-1-2006 and as she - had found it difficult, she was under mental pressure from 16-1-2006. On 17-1-2006, at about 1:00 p.m., she was required to attend further unit test examination; however, ", because tension mounted due to the studies, she poured kerosene from the stove and set herself ablaze and that she had no come plaint against anyone regarding the said incident. It is their further case that the said j dying declaration was recorded at about - 3:30 p.m. while the patient was in a condition to give her statement. It is their further case that yet another statement of the D deceased ~as recorded by Smt. Ruksana - Begum Nazir Hussain Sayyed, a respect- able person from the locality in question and answer form on 17-1-2006 itself wherein the incident narrated by the deceased was similar to the one recorded by the said Police Officer. Further statements came to be recorded of the petitioner and her husband on 17-1-2006 wherein they had expressed their doubt about the involvement of Umesh in the death of Yasmin on - account of his one-sided love affair. It has " been further stated that Yasmin expired on the 17th itself at about 10:00 p.m., having suffered 97% burn injuries and consequently ADR No. 12/2006 came to be registered by the Kurla Police Station. It has " been further stated that Yasmin expired on the 17th itself at about 10:00 p.m., having suffered 97% burn injuries and consequently ADR No. 12/2006 came to be registered by the Kurla Police Station. During the investigation, statements of various wit- nesses were recorded including one of the 1 neighbours of the deceased by name Smt. Pramila Ramchandra Mishra, which was 1 recorded on 28-1-2006, who had stated in - her statement that at about 5:00 p.m. on - 17 -1-2006 when she had visited the house of Yasmin, her father was inspecting the school bag of Yasmin and he found some loose papers in the note book and one of the papers had some note written in Hindi and as the father of Yasmin was unable to read and write, he had requested the Smt. Mishra to read the same for him. Smt. Mishra had found the said note to contain a letter which read as under: "Uma I love you, I am going to burn myself. Nobody is responsible for the same. No- body should trouble Uma. I will not leave anybody if somebody troubles him. Uma I miss you." It has been stated that it is further case of the respondent that the father of the victim girl has not produced the said, note till this date to the police authorities. It is further case of the respondent that though the petitioner and his family members had expressed doubt about the involvement of the said Umesh, there was no other evidence against him to implicate him in the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and the dying declaration of the deceased did not implicate or held him responsible and in the circumstances, the report under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code was submitted to the Assistant Commissioner of Police and the Special Executive Magistrate, Kurla Division, which was accepted by order dated 11-122006. The affidavit in reply on behalf of the respondent also disclose that there was a non-cognizable complaint registered against Umesh on 16-1-2006 at about 9:30 p.m.· for the incident of giving abuses and threat by him to the petitioner. It is further stated that the duty officer thereafter had sent the Beat Marshal No. 5 for search of the said Umesh for giving him warning, however, he could not be located at his residence on the said day. It is further stated that the duty officer thereafter had sent the Beat Marshal No. 5 for search of the said Umesh for giving him warning, however, he could not be located at his residence on the said day. According to the respondent, Yasmin committed suicide for the reasons disclosed by her in her dying declarations and, therefore, there is no substance in the case put forth by the petitioner. That is the case pleaded in the affidavit filed by Shri Dilip Yadav, the Inspector of Police (Investigation) on 11-6-2007. 8. Subsequent to hearing of the matter on 5-9-2007, an affidavit came to be filed, by the respondent No.6 Shri Vilas Pawar, Senior Inspector of Police in relation to the inquiry initiated by the Department against PI Dilip Yadav and PSIs Vishwanath Tambe and Murad Mulani informing that the Deputy Commissioner:" of Police had recorded the fmding that the said officers were negligent in the performance of their duty and show cause notice was issued to them in which punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year was proposed. However, subsequent to the hearing before this Court the authorities withdrew the show cause notice dated 10-9-2007 by order dated 29-10-2007 and on 31-10-2007 the Joint Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) issued orders for holding departmental inquiries against the said officers and on 7-11-2007 charges were framed and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-VII, Mumbai was appointed as the Inquiry Officer and the inquiry would be completed expeditiously. The said affidavit was filed on 23-7-2007. 9. Consequent to issuance of the notices, as already stated above, the officers sought to be impleaded on account of allegations against them, they have filed their affidavits. Shri Dilip Yadav, PI in his affidavit dated 18-1-2008 has stated that the endorsement signed by him on the report for obtaining the summary dated 31-10-2006 to the extent that the statement of the father and mother of the deceased Salma not, having expressed suspicion against anybody or complained against anybody was incorrect. Shri Dilip Yadav, PI in his affidavit dated 18-1-2008 has stated that the endorsement signed by him on the report for obtaining the summary dated 31-10-2006 to the extent that the statement of the father and mother of the deceased Salma not, having expressed suspicion against anybody or complained against anybody was incorrect. During the period there were about 62 ADRS forwarded by the concerned Investigating Officers to him for obtaining summary in the month of October, 2006 and in the usual course, the notings in the summary reports were made by the ADR Clerk and signed by him as he was generally aware about the progress in those cases and it was his mistake that he did not read the notings carefully. He has further stated in the affidavit that he had never person ally investigated the said case and the investigation was being conducted under the supervision of the Senior Inspector of Police and further that after the transfer of ( PSI Mulani, he had merely passed .an order 1 transferring the investigation to PSI Tambe and the latter had never forwarded any report to him till the report of the summary dated 31-10-2006. He has further stated that the observation of the Deputy Commissioner of Police regarding failure on his part to give proper guidance to the Investigation Officer was unwarranted as in the case in hand the investigation was being carried out under the guidance of the Senior Inspector of Police. He has also stated that failure to pay necessary attention to the incorrect notings made by the ADR Clerk 1 was not deliberate nor mala fide. Considering the departmental action already initiated against him, it is his case that he has been already sufficiently punished for his neligence and therefore his explanation in the matter should be accepted. 10. PSI Vishwanath Tanaji Tambe, the respondent No. 10, in his affidavit dated 211-2008 has stated that when PSI Mulani had approached the victim in the hospital, no family member and no person had expressed any complaint or doubt in relation to the incident in any manner' whatsoever or howsoever and PSI Mulani had taken abundant precaution to summon Smt. Ruksana Begum, who was a member of the Police Janata Samiti and to request her to record the dying declaration in question and answer form. He has further stated that on 17-1-2006 PSI Mulani had conducted the probe, inspected the house premises and conducted inquest panchnama on 18-1-2006 and had also recorded the statement of the petitioner. He has also stated in his affidavit that the petitioner had made passing reference about the love affair of her daughter with one Umesh Yellapa Arote and that it could be one of the reasons for the incident. The affidavit further disclose that on 18-1-2006 the father of the victim girl while taking charge of the body of the girl had expressed doubt about the involvement of Umesh Arote in the matter and had said that the act committed by his daughter could be on account of frustration caused by one sided love of the said Umesh Arote and had requested that action be taken against him. However, there was no proof advanced by him to substantiate the said statement. He has further stated that in the course of the investigation one thing clearly surfaced that the victim girl committed suicide on account of less marks obtained and the said fact was corroborated by her statement, the statement of her father and the mother before PSI Mulani and Smt. Ruksana. He has also stated that in the initial stage i.e. on 17-1-2006 there was no whisper about Umesh Arote and even later there was no proof advanced to link up the said Umesh or to show any direct nexus between the cause of death and the said Umesh Arote. A categorical statement in this l regard by the respondent in para 11 of the affidavit reads thus: “11. I say that in the course of the events that have occurred one thing surfaces clearly is that the victim girl caused to commit suicide on account of less marks obtained, this fact was corroborated by her statement, the statement of her father and mother made before PSI MULANI and Smt Ruksana. In ' the initial stage i.e. 17-1-06, there was no whisper about Umesh Arote. Further even later there was no proof advanced to link up the said Umesh Arote or show any direct nexus between the cause of death and the said Umesh Arote. In ' the initial stage i.e. 17-1-06, there was no whisper about Umesh Arote. Further even later there was no proof advanced to link up the said Umesh Arote or show any direct nexus between the cause of death and the said Umesh Arote. I respectfully submit that the statements recorded at the initial stages are vital documents which speak for itself about the state of affairs existing then." He has also stated in the affidavit that t since the time the parents of the girl expressed their doubt about Umesh Arote, PSIS Mulani took steps to find out his whereabouts. However, he was not traced and accordingly diary entry was made. It was revealed that the said Umesh Arote had left t the house since 17-1-2006 and would not "l be traced despite all efforts in that regard. He has further confirmed that the postmortem report disclosed the cause of death to be due to burns. However, he has has-tened to say in the affidavit that since the time the parents of the girl expressed there bouts about umesh arote PSI mulani took steps to find out whereabouts. "Further it is pertinent to note at this juncture that the said victim girl had not caused to raise any complaint against the said Umesh Arote whilst she was alive and on her proper senses in the statements given. Thus save an-except a vague doubt expressed, there was no iota against the said Umesh Arote who was not traced despite all diligent efforts then. Therefore, the case was sent for classification as an accidental death case." 11. In the further affidavit dated 4-2-2008 filed by PSI Vishwanath Tambe, the respondent No. 10, he has stated that prior to handing over of the ADR No. 12/2006, the investigation was conducted and carried out under the supervision of the Senior Police Inspector who is the officer incharge of Police Station and further that subsequent to the death of Yasmin, statements of several people were recorded by the respective officers and thereafter the said ADR was handed over to him. He has further stated that he had directed his subordinates to search one Umesh but the same proved futile and accordingly a diary entry was recorded. However, a detailed report was not filed by him by way of in advertence and in that regard already depart mental inquiry has been initiated. He has further stated that he had directed his subordinates to search one Umesh but the same proved futile and accordingly a diary entry was recorded. However, a detailed report was not filed by him by way of in advertence and in that regard already depart mental inquiry has been initiated. He has further stated that he had acted in a bona fide manner and had accordingly submitted his report for classifying the said ADR as a summary report. He has also objected for the petitioner approaching this Court in writ jurisdiction referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in (Prakash Singh Badal and another V s. State of Punjab and others)4, reported in 2007(1) S.C.C. 1 . Referring to the said judgment, is sought to be reminded to us in the affidavit that the High Court cannot direct registration of an FIR or direct to take cognizance of an offence in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been further stated in the affidavit that all along since the registration of the ADR No. 12/2006 the Senior Officers had been directing the junior officers like the respondent No. 10 and the investigation was being supervised by the Senior Officer and that, therefore, it cannot be said that he had committed any offence or has aided the perpetrators of the crime. Since the other respondents have already admitted their negligence in handling the aforesaid case and have filed affidavit before this Court admitting their negligence, no criminal offence could be levelled against him. He has denied the contention that there was wilful act on his part or that he had tried to shield any offender and has stated that his negligence and inadvertence has already been the subject-matter of the departmental proceedings and the competent authority would pass appropriate order if he is held negligent in performing his duties. 12. The respondent No. 11 PSI Murad Abdul Mulani in his affidavit has stated that the carried out the investigation to the best of his ability. On 17-1-2006 he was posted as the Day Station House Officer and as such officer is required to visit the spot of incident and record statements of the with nesses and submit the report to the Senior Police Inspector, if any incident was to occur within the jurisdiction of the concerned Police Station. On 17-1-2006 he was posted as the Day Station House Officer and as such officer is required to visit the spot of incident and record statements of the with nesses and submit the report to the Senior Police Inspector, if any incident was to occur within the jurisdiction of the concerned Police Station. On 17-1-2006 he was at the Kurla Police Station and at 1:00 p.m. he received information from Police Constable No. 31761, posted at the Lokmanya Tilak Hospital, Sian, Mumbai that a girl by name: Yasmin Babu Shaikh, aged about 18 years was admitted with severe burn inj'uries. As t soon as he received the information, he rushed to the Sion Hospital with Police Constable No. 30224 and a social activist Smt. Ruksana Begum Nazir Hussain Sayyed. Yasmin was found in injured upto 95% due to burns and the doctor had stated that she was in condition to give her statement and therefore Vie recoded the statement of the victim in the presence of her mother as well, as the said social worker. In her statement, 11 the victim stated that she had appeared for the unit test examination on 16-1-2006 for English subject and she had faced difficulty in answering the said paper and therefore she was under mental pressure. She was required to appear for unit test on 17-12006 at 1:00 p.m. However, as she was unable to answer the English paper effectively, she poured kerosene from the stove and set herself ablaze and that she had no complaint against anyone. After he recorded the statement, the said social activist also recorded the statement of Yasmin and the victim gave similar version to the said social activist. He also recorded the statements of the parents on the same day. Yasmin succumbed to her injuries on the very day at about 10:00 p.m. and PSI Bhosale prepared the accidental death report and registered the ADR No. 12/2006 and he prepared the incident report and submitted the same to the Senior Police Inspector, Kurla Police Station. Thereafter the matter was assigned to him for the first time on 21-12006 by the instructions of the Senior Police Inspector, Kurla. The petitioner had expressed suspicion about Umesh Arote for pressurising Yasmin and driving her to commit suicide. Thereafter the matter was assigned to him for the first time on 21-12006 by the instructions of the Senior Police Inspector, Kurla. The petitioner had expressed suspicion about Umesh Arote for pressurising Yasmin and driving her to commit suicide. He therefore called Umesh Arote for the purpose of investigation and instructed Police Head Constable Patil for surveillance staff and subordinate staff to call the said Umesh Arote for interrogation. In addition to the said investigation, he was entrusted with some other assignments. On 20-1-2006 he was assigned night station house duty. On 21-1-2006 ADR No. 12/2006 was assigned to him for investigation and on the very day he was posted to Shri Siddhivinayak Temple at Prabhadevi, Mumbai on protection duty. He was on I medical leave from 23-1-2006 to 25-1-2006 as he was suffering from high blood pres- C sure. He attended the Republic Day ceremony on 26-1-2006 and attended the Sessions Court on 27-1-2006 as well as the protection duty during the afternoon hours. He also recorded the statement of Yasmin's I teacher and the Head Mistress of the school. It is his case that Yasmin had stated in her F dying declaration the reason for commit- filing suicide was her poor performance in a her study which found corroboration from her teacher's statement. He also recorded the statements of the neighbours of Yasmin - including Kausar who in her statement has stated that Yasmin set herself ablaze only - after she had talked with Umesh Arote on his mobile phone which was given to her by Ganesh Galshetwar on 17-1-2006 at about 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. On 28-1) 2007 after recording the statement and further investigation he was deputed on protection duty at Tanaji Chowk, Kurla. From 29-1-2006 to 31-1-2006 he was deputed on l different assignments and on 1-2-2006 he was relieved from the Kurla Police Station to join the Central Control Room, Mumbai. 13. It is also to be noted that it is the case of the respondents themselves which is revealed from the affidavit filed by PI Dilip Yadavon 18-1-2006 that there were about 11 other similar cases filed against Umesh Arote and he was also arrested in relation to those cases. 14. 13. It is also to be noted that it is the case of the respondents themselves which is revealed from the affidavit filed by PI Dilip Yadavon 18-1-2006 that there were about 11 other similar cases filed against Umesh Arote and he was also arrested in relation to those cases. 14. Referring to the materials on record, it is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that the police not only failed to perform their duties in relation to the investigation in the matter but acted in such a manner that it could help the offender to evade the legal process and consequently the punishment which he would have otherwise faced if there had been proper investigation and placement of all the materials before the criminal Court. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that in spite of consistent effort on the part of the petitioner to bring to the notice of the police authorities about the involvement of Umesh Arote in the incident of death of her daughter, the police did not make any investigation in that regard and obviously tried to shield the said Umesh Arote from being prosecuted in the matter. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, it is not unintentional but lacks bona fide and, therefore, the respondent Police Officers are liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 201 and others under the Indian Penal Code as well as section 145(2)(c) and (d) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and therefore the respondents should be directed to register FIR in that regard and take appropriate steps in accordance with the provisions of law against the said police personnel. 15. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the department is already seized with the matter and even the preliminary inquiry has disclosed negligence on the part of the concerned officers and therefore necessary departmental proceedings are contemplated and the authorities will take appropriate action against the concerned officers. As far as the allegation of criminal negligence is concerned, the learned P.P. submitted that it may be left to the officer of the status of the Deputy Commissioner of Police to hold preliminary inquiry in that regard and in case they are found to have committed criminal negligence, certainly the State would not hesitate to take appropriate action. 16. As far as the allegation of criminal negligence is concerned, the learned P.P. submitted that it may be left to the officer of the status of the Deputy Commissioner of Police to hold preliminary inquiry in that regard and in case they are found to have committed criminal negligence, certainly the State would not hesitate to take appropriate action. 16. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 11 submitted that the respondent No. 11 has done whatever was required to be done in the matter in the facts and circumstances of the case and as he was transferred to some other department on 1-2-2006, he had no occasion to continue to be a party to the investigation proceedings in the matter in hand. However, the records disclose that he had recorded the statement of various witnesses in the process of investigation and therefore he cannot be blamed of having committed any criminal negligence as such. In fact, according to the learned Senior Counsel the records do not even disclose negligence on the part of the respondent No. 11 and within whatever time span which was available at his disposal, he had collected as much as evidence as was possible. He further submitted that the Court has to consider the difference between civil liability and criminal liability in cases where there are allegation of failure to perform the duty. Even assuming that there is failure to perform the duty in the sense that there is some delay in recording some statements, it would not per se amount to criminal negligence so as to warrant prosecution. In any case, since the department is already seized with T the matter, according to the learned Senior Counsel, there is no case made out by the petitioner for the relief asked for. 17. The learned Advocate appearing for l the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 while reiterating the submissions made on behalf of the respondent No. 11 submitted that though the records may disclose some inadvertence on the part of the respondents in pursuing with the investigation, that itself cannot be construed to be a negligence so as to warrant their prosecution in the I matter neither the respondents can be accused of having failed to perform their duties as they have conducted the investigation in the best possible manner and whatever evidence which could be collected by them was collected by them. The fact that Umesh Arote had sent a mobile phone to have conversation with the victim girl prior to her death was revealed to the investigation authorities only on 28-1-2006 pursuant to the statement of the sister of the victim and therefore they cannot be blamed for not taking any steps to locate the mobile phone or to get the necessary details in relation to the conversation between the victim girl and Umesh Arote till that time. In any case, mere failure to gather the necessary evidence as was expected by the petitioner, that itself cannot lead to the conclusion that the police authorities were negligent in collecting the necessary evidence. 18. The grievance of the petitioner in the matter in hand is two-fold. On the one hand, it is the case of the petitioner that in spite of failure on the part of the police authorities to investigate the matter properly and to apprehend the offender, the higher authorities are reluctant to take appropriate steps for proper investigation as well as to take appropriate disciplinary action against those persons. Secondly, it is the case of the petitioner that there is not only failure in performance of duty on the part of the police personnel attached to the Kurla Police Station at the relevant time, but the inaction on the part of the police personnel has been with the intention to shield the offender Umesh Arote from being subjected to the process of law and inspite of the fact that his involvement in the matter of death of the daughter of the petitioner was disclosed to the police authorities at earliest, the police authorities have openly exhibited callous attitude and gross criminal negligence in the matter of investigation relating to the death of her daughter which warrants criminal prosecution of such police, personnel. It is for this purpose that the petitioner seeks necessary direction for initiating necessary disciplinary proceedings, and on the other hand, for initiating criminal proceedings against the police personnel responsible or who is/are guilty of criminal negligence in the matter. 19. It is for this purpose that the petitioner seeks necessary direction for initiating necessary disciplinary proceedings, and on the other hand, for initiating criminal proceedings against the police personnel responsible or who is/are guilty of criminal negligence in the matter. 19. As regards the law on the point relating to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction for initiating criminal proceedings or to set criminal law in motion in relation to the offence and the offender, it was strenuously argued that in case of failure on the part of the police authorities to register the FIR or to take cognizance of the offence, the remedy lies in the form of a complaint to the Magistrate and therefore the remedy in writ jurisdiction is barred and in that regard reliance was placed in the matter of Prakash Singh ] Badal (supra) and specific attention was drawn to para 73 of the judgment. The para ' 73 of the judgment reads that "73. At this stage it needs to be clarified that the obligation to register a case is not to be confused with the remedy if same is not registered. Issue of the remedy has been decided by this Court in several cases. See 1 (Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre Vs. State of 1 Maharashtra)5, 2004 DGLS (soft) 670 : 2004(7) S.C.C. 768 : A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 4753." 20. Attention was also drawn to the decision in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, reported in 2004(7) S.C.C. 768 , and particularly to para 13 of the judgment wherein, referring to its earlier decision in the matter of (All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees' Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India)6, reported in 1996 DGLS (soft) 1718: 1996(11) S.C.C. 582 , it was observed that "It was specifically observed that a writ petition in such cases is not to be entertained.". The said observation was in relation to the entitlement of the complainant to seek relief by resorting to the provisions of section 190 sections 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code by filing a complaint before the Magistrate. In such cases, the Magistrate is required to inquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Cri.P.C, and in those context the Apex Court had said that writ petition word not be maintainable. 21. In such cases, the Magistrate is required to inquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Cri.P.C, and in those context the Apex Court had said that writ petition word not be maintainable. 21. In Prakash Singh Badal's case when the matter came up before the Apex Court, while contending that the cases which were initiated on the basis of complaints lodged were mala fide and an act of political vendetta and the issue before the Apex Court was that in view of the fact that the information disclosing cognizable offence having been laid before the officer in-charge of the Police Station for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of section 154(1) of the Cri.P.C., was there any option to the Police Officer except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information and further in case of failure in that regard, what would be the next step available to the complainant. Similarly, in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre's case (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with a matter regarding the right of the informant to be heard before disposal of the summary report submitted by the iI1vestigating agency as also whether there is requirement of notice to the party while dealing with the matter under section 173 of the Cri. P.C. 22. Attention has also been drawn to the recent decision in the matter of (Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of u.P. & ors.j7, reported in 2007 DGLS (soft) 1247: A.I.R. 2008 S.C.W. 309 : 2008(2) S.C.C. 409 : A.I.R. 2008 S.C. 907. Therein it was held thus: "25. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the Police Station and/ or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under section 482, Cri. P.C. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly under section 154(3) and section 36, Cri. P.C. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly under section 154(3) and section 36, Cri. P.C. before the concerned Police Officers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate under section 156(3)." At the same time, it was also observed by the Apex Court in the same decision that "28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere." 23. It was a case wherein the son of the appellant in the said case, who was in the Army as a Major, his body was found on 23-8-2003 at Mathura Railway Station and the G.R.P., Mathura investigated the matter and gave a detailed report on 29-8-2003 stating that the death was due to an accident or suicide. The Army officials at Mathura also twice held Court 'of Inquiry and both the times submitted the report that the deceased had committed suicide at the railway track at Mathura junction. The Court of Inquiry relied on the statement of the domestic servant who had stated that the deceased never looked cheerful; he used to sit on a chair in the verandah gazing at the roof with blank eyes and deeply involved in some thoughts and used to remain oblivious of the surroundings. The Court of Inquiry also relied on the deposition of the main eyewitness, gangman Roop Singh, who had stated that the deceased was hit by a goods train that came from Delhi. The appellant who was the father of the deceased alleged that in fact it was a case of murder and not suicide. He alleged that in the Mathura unit of the Army there was rampant corruption about which the deceased came to know and he made oral complaints about it to his superiors and also to his father. According to him, it was for this real son that his son was murdered. Considering those facts, the Apex Court ruled that "34. In the present case, we are of the opinion that the material on record does not disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by the cm. According to him, it was for this real son that his son was murdered. Considering those facts, the Apex Court ruled that "34. In the present case, we are of the opinion that the material on record does not disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by the cm. The mere allegation of the appellant that his son was murdered because he had discovered some corruption cannot, in our opinion, justify a CBI inquiry, particularly when inquiries were held by the Army authorities as well as by the G.R.P. at Mathura, which revealed that it was a case of suicide." 24. It is a settled law that the ratio of a decision is to be understood with reference I to the facts of the case and the points for consideration which arise in the matter. A sentence in a judgment cannot be read as a statutory provision. It is also equally settled that decision is what it decides and not what may follow from it and being so, every observation in the judgment has to be understood with reference to the facts of the case and the point involved for consideration therein. This has been repeatedly held by the Apex Court and elaborately discussed in the decision in (Union of India and others Vs. Dhanwanti Delli and others)8, reported in 1996 DGLS (soft) 1252: 1996(6) S.C.C. 44 and also in (State ofOrissaVs. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra & ors.)9, reported in 1967 DGLS (soft) 301: A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 647. The law on the point as to whether in a given case writ jurisdiction is to be exercised or not even for the purpose of directing initiation of criminal proceedings is that it would depend upon the facts of each case. Mere availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for exercise of writ jurisdiction, though ordinarily it has to be avoided when efficacious alternative remedy is available to the 'party and is appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. 25. In the case in hand, undisputedly, the facts which have come on record would reveal that on 16-1-2006 the petitioner had been to various police cockiest in the 10calitywith her grievance about harassment to her daughter by the said Umesh Arote. 25. In the case in hand, undisputedly, the facts which have come on record would reveal that on 16-1-2006 the petitioner had been to various police cockiest in the 10calitywith her grievance about harassment to her daughter by the said Umesh Arote. Though in the affidavit of the respondent No.9 there is a solemn statement that a N.C. in that regard was registered against Umesh Arote on 16-1-2006 at 9:30 p.m., and further that there were about eleven such similar cases against him and he was also arrested in those cases, apart from the statement that Beat Marshal No.5 was deputed for searching the said Umesh Arote but he could not be located at his residence, no other efforts seem have been made to locate him. At the same time, it is undisputed fact that on 17-1-2006 Umesh Arote was not available at his residence. The petitioner had been making grievance about the involvement of Umesh Arote in the death of her daughter right from the day one and this was to the knowledge of the Investigating Officers, yet the Investigation Officers nowhere disclose to have taken any step to make any sort of investigation in that regard at any point of time. We have been only told that there were efforts made to locate Umesh Arote. What were those efforts? How those efforts were made and in what manner? The respondents are totally silent about the same. There is no explanation forthcoming in that regard. At the same time, the affidavit of the respondent No.9 discloses that Umesh Arote was involved in eleven other similar cases and he was even arrested in those cases. In such circumstances, what prevented the investigating ~agency from apprehending him in the present case and in making necessary inquiry with Umesh Arote in relation to the case in hand. It is neither known nor we find any material placed before us in that regard disclosing to be part of investigation. 26. The affidavit of the respondent No. 11 discloses that he was fully aware of the fact that the provision of section 174 of the Cri. P.C. Were attracted in the matter in hand. It is neither known nor we find any material placed before us in that regard disclosing to be part of investigation. 26. The affidavit of the respondent No. 11 discloses that he was fully aware of the fact that the provision of section 174 of the Cri. P.C. Were attracted in the matter in hand. Before arriving at any finding about the accidental death, it was also necessary for the Investigation Officers to ascertain the involvement of any other person in relation to the death of the daughter of the petitioner and therefore the suspicion expressed by the petitioner could not have been brushed aside nor could have been ignored in the manner the Investigation Officers have ignored and discarded the same in the case in hand. In cas~ of criminal offences, when the police authorities are approached by the citizens complaining about the involvement of any third person or expressing suspicion in that regard, it is the duty of the Police Officer to investigate I into the matter taking into consideration the information imparted to him in that regard, albeit, question of taking action against the person against whom suspicion is expressed may not arise immediately. Nevertheless, once suspicion is expressed, the Investigation Officer cannot be heard to say that he would remain silent and will do nothing to verify the suspicion expressed I by the relative of the deceased. It would not be mere failure to perform the duty but it can lead to cause grievous injury to the in formant, the relative of the deceased as failure in that regard may help the offender in shielding himself from the process of law and avoiding the punishment. As also, may give opportunity to destroy the relevant piece of evidence which the Investigation Officer would be otherwise required to collect. Being so, failure in such cases cannot be presumed to be mere lapses on the part of the Investigation Officers. The Investigation Officers are not laymen but are trained in the matter of investigation and they are made aware of the requirement which are to be complied with for effective investigation relating to criminal offences. Failure to perform his duty by an Investigation Officer may help or may result in helping the offender in avoiding the process of law against him in one way or the other and therefore certainly could be construed as gross criminal negligence. 27. Failure to perform his duty by an Investigation Officer may help or may result in helping the offender in avoiding the process of law against him in one way or the other and therefore certainly could be construed as gross criminal negligence. 27. In the case in hand, it is a matter of record that the petitioner had informed the police authorities that she had suspicion about the involvement of Umesh Arote in the death of her daughter. The records before us, however, do not disclose anything except recording by the police authorities that the some police personnel were deputed to locate Umesh Arote. Investigation does not include mere search of the person who is suspected to be involved in a criminal offence. When the involvement of certain person is disclosed, it is also necessary for the Investigation Officer to inquire about his acts and activities preceding which have preceded the commission of the offence. The investigation papers nowhere disclose any efforts having been made by the police authorities in this regard. 28. As already observed above, the affidavit of PI Dilip Yadav clearly discloses that the said Umesh was involved in similar eleven other offences and he was even arrested in respect thereof. The records placed before us are however silent about the date of such offences, the date of the arrest of Umesh Arote as well as what prevented the investigating agency from conducting necessary inquiries from him in relation to the case in hand when he was arrested in relation to similar other offences. 29. The records disclose that on 28-12006 the respondent No. 11, who was in charge of the investigation at the initial stage, had recorded the statements of the neighbour of the deceased as well as the sister of the deceased. At the same time, his affidavit discloses that he had been to the scene of offence i.e. at the residence of the deceased on 17-1-2008. Neither the affidavit nor the investigation papers disclose as to what prevented him from recording I the statement of the sister of the deceased on 17-1-2006 itself at:' immediately thereafter and why he had to wait till 28-1-2006 to record the statement of the sister of the deceased. Neither the affidavit nor the investigation papers disclose as to what prevented him from recording I the statement of the sister of the deceased on 17-1-2006 itself at:' immediately thereafter and why he had to wait till 28-1-2006 to record the statement of the sister of the deceased. Undisputedly, the statement of the sister of the deceased disclosed that a person by name Ganesh Galshetwar had approached the deceased on 17-1-2006 at about 11:00 a.m. along with a mobile phone with the message that the same was sent by Umesh Arote to enable the latter to have conversation with the deceased and accordingly, the deceased had conversation with Umesh Arote from 11 :00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and immediately thereafter the deceased ran s inside the house and set herself ablaze. Inspite of the fact that this information could have been availed of by the Investigation 1 Officer on 17-1-2006 itself, what was the reason for the Investigation Officer to wait t till 28-1-2006 to record the statement of the sister of the deceased. There is no explanation forthcoming in any manner. The police authorities are fully aware of the fact that - investigation has to be conducted expeditiously as the same not only helps the in- vestigating agency to identify the culprit and to establish his offence but it also avoids giving time to the culprit to manipulate and/or to destroy the relevant piece of evidence. What is further more surprising is that in spite of the fact that the investigation f agency was informed on 28-1-2006 that prior to the death of Yasm in she had a talk on the mobile phone with Umesh Arote, there was no effort on the part of the investigating agency to ascertain about such telephonic conversation by contacting the telephone agency nor there was any effort made to seize the mobile phone which was used in such conversation. It is also pertinent to note that Ganesh Galshetwar, in his statement, has dearly confirmed about giving of mobile phone of Umesh Arote to the deceased. Undoubtedly, it was sought to be pointed out to us that the mobile phone was given only on 14-1-2006 and not on 17-1-2006. It is true that the statement of Ganesh discloses that the mobile phone was given to Ganesh by Umesh Arote on 14-1-2006. However,nis statement recorded under section 161 of the Cri. Undoubtedly, it was sought to be pointed out to us that the mobile phone was given only on 14-1-2006 and not on 17-1-2006. It is true that the statement of Ganesh discloses that the mobile phone was given to Ganesh by Umesh Arote on 14-1-2006. However,nis statement recorded under section 161 of the Cri. P.C. is totally silent as to the timing and date on which the mobile phone was given to the deceased. Obviously, the police must have either not asked anything on this aspect, or can it be a case wherein having asked, the answer being not favourable to the culprit, the same is not recorded? There is no explanation why it was not asked for, nor any explanation for absence of recording of the same. 30. It is pertinent to note that right from the beginning and particularly even prior to the death of Yasmin, from 16-1-2006 itself it was the grievance of the petitioner that Umesh Arote had been harassing her daughter and immediately after her death, expressed suspicion about his involvement in the death of Yasmin. All the affidavits consistently refer to the fact that though the alleged dying declarations did not refer to the involvement of Umesh Arote in the death of Yasmin or the whole incident that had occurred on 17-1-2006, yet while the alleged dying declarations were being recorded, not only the petitioner but both the parents of Yasmin had expressed their suspicion about the involvement of Umesh Arote to the Investigation Officer. This was not merely to the knowledge of the respondent No. 11 to whom the same was initially stated to have been expressed on 17-1-2006 but it was also to the knowledge of the respondent Nos. 6 and 9 as the affidavits clearly disclose that importation of such information by the petitioner formed part of the investigation proceedings Tight from the beginning and it is a matter of record. As already observed above, the respondent No. 11 had visited the scene of offence on 17-1-2006 itself. There is neither explanation from the respondent No. 11 nor the other respondents as to what prevented and what was the reason for non-recording of the statements of the other inmates of the house of the petitioner particularly the sister of the deceased and the neighbours including Ganesh Galshetwar on the very day. There is neither explanation from the respondent No. 11 nor the other respondents as to what prevented and what was the reason for non-recording of the statements of the other inmates of the house of the petitioner particularly the sister of the deceased and the neighbours including Ganesh Galshetwar on the very day. The learned P.P. fairly conceded that the investigation in relation to the mobile which was stated to have been used by the deceased prior to setting herself ablaze was absolutely necessary. Inspite of that and the affidavit of the respondent No. 11 being to- 1 tally silent about his activities between 17-1-2006 to 20-1-2006 and there being no disclosure in that regard whatsoever manner in his affidavit as well as in the affidavits of the other respondents, can it be said be a mere lapse or simple negligence as, sought to be argued on behalf of the respondents which will not amount to any - criminal liability? The inaction in that regard is not by a layman. It is by the authority who is trained and who is required to conduct the investigation in relation to all criminal offences as expeditiously as possible and in the best possible manner. It cannot be disputed that for enquiring about the mobile phone and recording of the 'statement of the sister of the deceased, it need not require any expertise in the investigation. The incident had occurred inside the house. The police could have immediately ascertained who were the persons present at the time of the incident and those who had visited the place prior to and immediately after the incident. Eyen a layman would know the need of such investigation. In such circumstances, the inaction in that regard, in our considered opinion, can by no stretch of imagination be said to be a mere negligence or lapse. Prima facie, it would be a gross criminal negligence. Eyen a layman would know the need of such investigation. In such circumstances, the inaction in that regard, in our considered opinion, can by no stretch of imagination be said to be a mere negligence or lapse. Prima facie, it would be a gross criminal negligence. It is more so when the statement recorded on 28-1-2006 of the sister of the deceased elaborately disclose that Ganesh Galshetwar had been acting as an agent of Umesh Arote and he had brought the mobile of Umesh Arote and handed over the same to Yasmin asking her to have conversation with Umesh Arote with the help of the said mobile and in fact she had conversation with Umesh Arote on the said day and immediately thereafter she rushed inside, closed the door and poured kerosene on her body and set herself ablaze. The statement of Ganesh Galshetwar also discloses that Umesh Arote had given his mobile to Ganesh Galshetwar in order to give the same to Yasmin. It is true that the statement of Ganesh Galshetwar nowhere discloses the date and time when such mobile was handed over to Yasmin. Here again it can hardly be said to be a mere lapse on the part of the investigation agency to investigate into this aspect knowing well that the incident of setting herself blaze had occurred immediately after the conversation with Umesh with the help of the mobile which was given to her by Ganesh Galshetwar and Ganesh having confirmed that the said mobile was given to him by Umesh Arote to be given to Yasmin for necessary conversation by her with Umesh Arote, it was absolutely necessary for the investigating agency to fmd out as to at what time and date the said mobile was handed by Ganesh Galshetwar to Yasmin. We cannot believe the same to be mere lapse on the part of the investigation agency to investigate in this regard knowing well the circumstances in which the incident had occurred and the same having occurred immediately after the use of the said mobile. The inaction cannot be said to be mere negligence or lapse but prima facie has to be considered as gross criminal negligence. 31. The affidavits in reply filed by these Police Officers certainly make interesting reading. The inaction cannot be said to be mere negligence or lapse but prima facie has to be considered as gross criminal negligence. 31. The affidavits in reply filed by these Police Officers certainly make interesting reading. The affidavit of the respondent No. 9 discloses a clear admission about signing endorsement without even reading the same leave aside ascertaining the truthfulness of the contents of the endorsement. It is pertinent to note that the report was submitted for necessary decision about closure of the investigation on the ground that there was no case 'against Umesh Arote. It was in the circumstances where the said Umesh Arote was already involved in eleven other similar cases to the knowledge of such officer and yet the Police Officer blindly signed the endorsement for closing the matter, ignoring the necessity for investigation regarding the alleged involvement of Umesh Arote in the offence. He did not even bother to read the endorsement. Can this be said to be a mere negligence or lapse? What is further disturbing is that the officer further states in his affidavit that the failure to pay necessary attention to the incorrect notings made by the ADR clerk was not deliberate or mala fide. The very officer who confirms on oath that there were eleven other similar cases against the said Umesh Arote at the relevant time had audacity to say on oath that his failure to pay the necessary attention to the incorrect notings made by the ADR Clerk were not deliberate and were not mala fide. 32. As regards the affidavit of the respondent No. 10 is concerned, the said officer has attempted to knock out the petitioner out of the Court on technical grounds rather than placing on record the true facts. In his affidavit he has stated that "In front of her father the said girl had stated the reasons for the injuries sustained on her body. However, at the said time the said father had not expressed any doubt on any person/ s in respect of the said incident occurred and only after the demise of the said victim on 18.6.06, the father started expressing doubts in relation to her death." Undisputedly, the respondent No. 10 took over the investigation only on 1-2-2006. He has no personal knowledge about the investigation prior to 1-2-2006. He has no personal knowledge about the investigation prior to 1-2-2006. Whatever statement he could make in relation to the investigation prior to 1-2-2006 has necessarily to be on the basis of the investigation records. In view of the categorical statement on the part of the respondent No. 11 that the petitioner was right from in the beginning had expressed suspicion about the involvement of Umesh Arote, apparently the statement of the respondent No. 10 quoted above appear to be contrary to the records, or for that matter is a false statement. It was, therefore, with the help of the learned P.P. we had tried to go through the records to ascertain whether anywhere any such record is to be found in relation to the investigation proceeding prior to 1-2-2006 which could reveal that the father of Yasmin had not expressed any doubt in relation to any person at the time of the alleged recording of the dying declaration of Yasmin. The learned P.P., however, has fairly conceded that there is no such recording found in the investigation records. Before making r the said statement, the learned P.P. had taken assistance of the Investigation Officer present in the Court to go through the records. This apparently shows that the r respondent No. 10 has no hesitation even to tell lies on oath. 33. The affidavit of the respondent No. 10 further states in para 9 thereof as under: "9. On 18th January, 06 the father of the victim whilst taking charge of the body of the girl, also expressed a doubt on the said , Umesh Yellapa Arote and said that the act committed by his daughter could be on account of frustration caused by the one sided love of the said Umesh and requested that action be taken against him. However no evidence proof was advanced by him to substantiate the said statements." Indeed, it is surprising and shocking that the Investigation Officer of the stature of Police Sub-Inspector at the relevant time is expecting the complainant to collect evidence for the investigating agency, totally forgetting that it is the duty and obligation of the investigation agency to collect the evidence in criminal matters and not of the complainant. He is totally silent about what efforts he had made to make any investigation in relation to the suspicion expressed by the father of the deceased, nor the investigation records placed before us could reveal any efforts in that regard on the part of this officer. 34. The officer appears to have completely forgotten that the investigation in criminal matters is not by armchair method but by actual field work. In para 11 of his affidavit he states thus: "11. I say that in the course of events that have occurred one thing surfaces clearly is that the victim girl caused to commit suicide on account of less marks obtained, this fact was corroborated by her statement, the statement of her father and mother made before PSI MULANI and Smt Ruksana. In the initial stage i.e. 17.1.06, there was no whisper about Umesh Arote. Further even later there was no proof advanced to link up the said Umesh Arote or show any direct nexus between the cause of death and the said Umesh Arote. I respectfully submit that the statements recorded at the initial stages are vital documents Which speak for itself about the state of affairs existing then." On the one hand the officer has expressed full knowledge about the law regarding the relevancy of the statements which are recorded immediately after the incident and on the other hand has conveniently tried to satisfy himself with the alleged dying declarations of the deceased without bothering to conduct any further investigation while making yet another false statement on oath. The statement is the one in the above quoted para that the alleged statement of the deceased was corroborated by "the statement of her father and mother made before PSI MULANI and Smt. Ruksana". It is evidently false and contradictory to the records. There is no statement either of the father or the mother corroborating the statement of the deceased. Therefore there was no occasion for this officer to make a statement on oath that the statement made by the deceased girl was corroborated by the statement of her parents. It is evidently false and contradictory to the records. There is no statement either of the father or the mother corroborating the statement of the deceased. Therefore there was no occasion for this officer to make a statement on oath that the statement made by the deceased girl was corroborated by the statement of her parents. At the same time, the officer gives no explanation, inspite of the knowledge that the statements recorded at the initial stages are of vital documents, and therefore why the statement of the sister and neighbours were not recorded immediately after the incident and if he was not in-charge, at the relevant time, what investigation he had done to find out what prevented the, then Investigation Officer from recording the statements immediately after the incident. 35. Further, in panr~12 the officer has stated that since the parents expressed doubt about Umesh Arote, PSI Mulani took l steps to find out his whereabouts. However, there were no traces of Arote and "accordingly diary entry was made. The diary entry speaks only about deputing certain of1 firers to locate Umesh Arote. The diary no) where discloses any efforts having been 1 made by PSI Mulani himself to find out the whereabouts of Umesh Arote and yet this I officer makes a solemn statement on oath t about there being entry made about the ef1 forts made by PSI Mulani. 36. The officer has further stated in para 12 of his affidavit that "Further it is pertinent to note at this juncture that the said - victim girl had not caused to raise any complaint against the said Umesh Arote whilst she was alive and on her proper senses in - the statements given." It is pertinent to note that the records every where disclose that 1 the girl had suffered 97% burn injuries, which injuries she had suffered immediately I after having conversation with Umesh Arote , with the help of a mobile which was sent to her through Ganesh Galshetwar. Added to this, the mother had expressed suspicion about the involvement of Umesh Arote. Besides, on the preVious night Umesh Arote had attempted to pull the girl out of her house, and that too, during late night hours. There was also a piece of paper found in the belongings of the deceased which makes reference to one Umesh Arote. Added to this, the mother had expressed suspicion about the involvement of Umesh Arote. Besides, on the preVious night Umesh Arote had attempted to pull the girl out of her house, and that too, during late night hours. There was also a piece of paper found in the belongings of the deceased which makes reference to one Umesh Arote. lnspite of these materials being available, the officer claims the alleged dying declarations to be gospel truth, ignoring the circumstances under which the statement, if at all was given by the deceased. 37. As regards the dying declarations, at the outset it is to be noted that all the observations hereinafter regarding the same, are essentially in relation to the conduct of the Police Officers in the course of the investigation and shall not influence in any manner the courts below while dealing with any matter arising out of the FIR lodged in relation to death of Yasmin.As regards the said dying declarations, this Court (Coram: Smt. Ranjana P. Desai and D.E. Bhosale, JJ.) by order dated 13-6-2007 had already observed that prima facie the said dying declarations do not appear to be genuine. Indeed, perusal of the dying declaration stated to have been recorded by the Police Officer bear a thumb impression whereas the dying declaration stated to have been recorded by Smt. Ruksana do not bear any thumb impression. Neither of the declarations appear to be in the handwriting of Smt. Ruksana. The signature of the said lady Smt. Ruksana on the dying declaration alleged to have been recorded by her is itself sufficient to note that the said dying declaration is in the hand-writing of some other person. The declaration on the face of it nowhere discloses as to who has written the same. As regards the dying declaration date of Maharashtra recorded by the police, there is an endorsement in the margin column on the first page of the alleged declaration and it shows the date as 17.1.06 and timing as 3.30 a.m. The hand-writing on both the declarations appears to be of the same person. The endorsement also shows that there were 95% bums suffered by the patient. The further endorsement also clarifies that the patient's both the hands and legs were burned so could not sign and no finger impression obtained. The endorsement also shows that there were 95% bums suffered by the patient. The further endorsement also clarifies that the patient's both the hands and legs were burned so could not sign and no finger impression obtained. As regards this endorsement and also the endorsement relating to the date, the same do not appear to be in the same hand-writing as that of the doctor who is stated to have made the endorsement that the patient is in condition to give valid statement. The inquest panchnama states that the body of the patient was 100% burnt. 38. If one peruses the first dying declaration, it states that at the relevant time the deceased was alone at her residence as her brothers Irfan and Firoze had gone to play and on that occasion being depressed she poured kerosene on her body and set herself ablaze. The investigation 'has revealed pursuant to the statement of the sister as well as the neighbour that the deceased was not alone at her residence at the relevant time. This was to the knowledge of the respondent No. 10 who had taken over the investigation on 1-2-2006 along with the investigation papers including the statements of the sister and the neighbour of the deceased which were recorded, on 28-12006. As far as the performance of Yasmin l in the English paper which she had answered on 16-1-2006, undisputedly, no in vestigation has been carried out even though the Investigation Officer has examined two teachers from the same school where she was studying. Both the statements recorded - one of Smt. Rajeshree Vilas Kulkarni and another of Shri Purushottam Dinkar Talere, refers to the performance of Yasmin during the IXth standard. Both of them confirm the fact that she had answered the English paper on 16-1-2006. However, there is no statement recorded of any of the teachers or person/ s from the school regarding the evaluation of the answer book of Yasmin in relation to the English paper which she had answered on 161-2006 and yet the officer wants us to believe him when he states that the alleged dying declaration was the fool-proof of non in volvement of any third person in the incident. It is also pertinent to note that all the' above referred statements have been made by PSI Vishwanath Tanaji Tambe in his affidavit inspite of knowing the fact that with the passage of time pursuant to the agitation by the petitioner and her husband and consequent to filing of the present writ petition, already cognizance has been taken about the alleged involvement of Umesh Arote in the said incident and he was even arrested and the investigation is going on. All these statements of this officer in his affidavit, the stand taken by him and the contentions raised while showing no hesitation to make incorrect and false statements on oath apparently disclose a clear attempt to hoodwink and mislead the Court while attempting to give lame excuses for his deliberate inaction, as revealed from , the records. Albeit these findings are prima , facie findings which can sufficiently disclose the need for investigation against this officer for his criminal negligence in the matter in hand. 39. The above observation is inevitable in ' view of further statement which the officer' is unable to substantiate in any manner. In para 5 of his further affidavit dated 4-22008, the officer has stated thus: "I far that subsequent to the death of the said deceased (Yasmin), statements of several I, people were recorded by the respective officers and thereafter, the said A.D.R. was handed over to me, say that perused the statements and also directed my subordinates to search for one Umesh Arote. But, however, my chase in the search was futile and the said Arote was untraceable and accordingly, a diary entry was recorded and a detailed report was not filed by me to my supervisory officer and/or Senior P. 1.of the said Police Station." As the affidavit is not accompanied by any material in support of the statement and the claim of the officer that he had given directions to his subordinates to search Umesh Arote and that he had himself made such search but it proved futile and there was a diary entry made in that regard, the learned P.P. was asked to get the necessary: "information from the concerned officer, who is also present in the Court, with the help of perusal of the diary in that regard. On having gone through the necessary exercise in that regard, the officer could not locate any such entry in the diary. On having gone through the necessary exercise in that regard, the officer could not locate any such entry in the diary. The learned P.P. thereupon fairly conceded that he is not in a position to produce any material nor there is any such entry by the concerned l Police Officer in the case diary. This further discloses that the officer is so shameless that he has no hesitation in making false statements on oath. 40. As regards the respondent No. 11 is concerned, as already observed above, there is no explanation forthcoming for inaction on his part to conduct any investigation between 18-1-2006 to 20-1-2006. He has l claimed in his affidavit that he was on medical leave from 23-1-2006 to 25-1-2006 as he was suffering from high blood pressure. No medical evidence in that regard is attached to the affidavit. He has also stated that on 27-1-2006 he attended the Sessions Court from 10:00 hours to 14:00 hours and thereafter he had attended demonstration at Indiranagar Zopadpatti. 41. The affidavit of this officer is yet another classic example of how all these three Police Officers are in connivance with each other in attempt to justify their deliberate inaction and it is apparent from para 9 of the affidavit of this officer. The relevant portion of para 9 reads thus: "I state that Kousar in her statement stated that Yasmin set herself blaze only after she had talk with Umesh Arote on his mobile phone and that mobile phone was given by Ganesh Galshetwar to her on 17.1.2006 at about 11 am to 11.30 am. Then Yasmin returned the mobile to Ganesh and after short time Yasmin pour kerosene on her person and set on fire herself. I state that but Ganesh in his statement stated different story that he was returned from school on 17.1.2006 at about 12.30 pm. state that found contradiction in the statement of Kousar and Ganesh." At the outset, it is to be noted that the deponent nowhere discloses what was the contradiction in the statement of Kausar and Ganesh on the relevant aspect of the matter. In the first supplementary statement Ganesh Galshetwar had admitted that on 16-1-2006 he had handed over the mobile phone to the deceased as per the instructions of Umesh Arote whereas in the second supplementary statement he has given a contradictory statement. In the first supplementary statement Ganesh Galshetwar had admitted that on 16-1-2006 he had handed over the mobile phone to the deceased as per the instructions of Umesh Arote whereas in the second supplementary statement he has given a contradictory statement. But the fact remains that in the two earlier statements Ganesh Galshetwar had confirmed that he was acting as a mediator between Umesh Arote and Yasmin at the instance of Umesh and used to deliver mobile phone of Umesh to Yasmin to enable them to have conversation with each other. In the back ground of these facts having come on record, we fail to understand what was that contradiction in the statement of Kausar and Ganesh which persuaded the respondent No. 11 not to conduct the investigation in the manner it was required to be conducted and to try to locate the mobile phone and make further investigation as regards the conversation which took place between Yasmin and Umesh Arote on 17-1-2006 itself. There is no explanation forthcoming in this regard in his affidavit. 42. In the above circumstances, though the learned P.P. had strenuously tried to argue that the matter should be left to the concerned authorities to conduct the necessary preliminary inquiry and to take appropriate decision, with utmost respect, we are unable to agree with the said suggestion. We find that the Police Officers who were entrusted with the investigation in the case in hand, who were expected to conduct the investigation honestly, sincerely and to the best of their ability, have not only failed to perform their duties accordingly but unfortunately and shockingly their conduct reveal to be those of the persons - acting with the sole purpose of shielding the real culprit and allowing him to go scote free and there was not even an attempt to t collect the evidence which was to their t knowledge available and could have been collected much earlier. An Investigation Officer who is required to conduct investigation in relation to a cognizable offence when intentionally avoids to collect the required evidence, or even fails to take appropriate steps which in normal circumstances any Investigation Officer is expected to take, without any justification and explanation in that regard, then the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the in action in that regard was deliberate and intentional and with the sole intention to help the wrongdoers unless otherwise is established. Certainly, such an inaction on the part of the police authorities cannot be ignored nor can be pardoned. It will send not only wrong message but it will result in great prejudice to the public and will harnper the process of law and lead to lawlessness. The members of the public who approach the police authorities with the hope and expectation that the wrongdoers should be booked for the commission of offences and should be punished, would stand to loose trust in the police department, if such officers for their serious inactions are allowed to go scot-free. Mere disciplinary action in that regard would not be sufficient answer. Shielding or trying to shield any wrongdoer is itself a serious offence and assumes more seriousness when it is committed by a person none other than from the police department. Therefore, we do expect the Government to take a serious note of this and to take appropriate action against the erring Police Officers and personnel, failing which the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court afresh. 43. We, therefore, direct the respondent No.1 to take immediate action in the matter and in any case within twelve weeks, in accordance with the provisions of law for disciplinary action as well as for criminal proceedings against the concerned officers. The respondent Nos. 9 to 11 to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner. The costs shall be paid from the personal account of those respondents and shall not be a bur- I den on the Government treasury. The costs to be paid within twelve weeks. Needless to say that all the observations made herein above are in relation to the conduct of the Investigation Officers and shall not in any way weigh in the mind of the courts below while dealing with the matter arising out of the FIR lodged in relation to the death of Yasmin. The costs to be paid within twelve weeks. Needless to say that all the observations made herein above are in relation to the conduct of the Investigation Officers and shall not in any way weigh in the mind of the courts below while dealing with the matter arising out of the FIR lodged in relation to the death of Yasmin. The action taken report should be placed before the Court within two weeks I after twelve weeks for necessary further orders, if any, in the matter. The rule is made absolute accordingly in above terms. 44. After the pronouncement of the judgment, the learned Advocates appearing for the respondent Nos. 9 to 11 prayed for stay of the judgment. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any case for stay of the judgment. The request for stay is rejected. Rule made absolute.