Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2411 (BOM)

Namdeo Sampatrao Wade v. State of Maharashtra

2013-11-27

A.B.CHAUDHARI, Z.A.HAQ

body2013
JUDGMENT A. B. CHAUDHARI, J. :- Heard Mr. Khandalkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Following are the prayers in the present writ petition: "a) Issue writ of habeas corpus, writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions against the Respondents and be pleased to direct the Respondents to hand over the entire investigation regarding the missing person Shri Sampatrao Wade to the State C.I.D. b) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, direct the State through an Officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police of the State C.I.D. to investigate the entire matter as a suspected homicide and submit a report to this Hon'ble Court within a time bound period. BB. "that the entire investigation may kindly be handed over to Central Bureau of Investigation, in the interest of justice; c) Pass any other order of grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. CC. grant compensation of Rs.5 lacs from respondent State for lapses and latches on the part of Police Machinery in the matter. " 3. In support of the petition the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Khandalkar argued that Sampatrao Wade, father of the present petitioner, went missing since 28.02.2002 and since the Police Station Officer Butibori did not properly investigate, the investigation should be handed over to State C.I.D. He pointed out to us an affidavit filed by the State indicating that the State C.I.D. was unwilling to take the investigation on the ground that it was not feasible. He, therefore, argued that the competent investigating agency should be directed to investigate for tracing out the father of the petitioner. 4. Per contra, Mr. Mirza, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor took us through the various affidavits filed in this matter, so also the papers of investigation and various reports in relation to the attempts made by the police machinery to trace out Sampat Wade. 5. We have gone through the record and proceedings so also the reports placed by the Investigating Officer from time to time. Mr. Khandalkar pointed out that some of the statements of the witnesses are contradictory and therefore, the investigation was not carried out properly. 6. It is seen that the alleged incident of missing is of the year 2002. 5. We have gone through the record and proceedings so also the reports placed by the Investigating Officer from time to time. Mr. Khandalkar pointed out that some of the statements of the witnesses are contradictory and therefore, the investigation was not carried out properly. 6. It is seen that the alleged incident of missing is of the year 2002. After the report was lodged at Police Station, Butibori the concerned investigating officer immediately had made investigation and had also filed an affidavit in reply in this Court i.e. first in time after the missing report was lodged. Perusal of the affidavit of respondent No.3, to our mind, clearly shows that the Police Station Officer, Butibori was the first person to investigate into the case of missing and he searched for the missing person even in the forest between Sonurli and Butibori, but of no use. Photographs were published, news on the television was flashed and all the efforts were made by the State/ Police Machinery for tracing out the missing person. We reproduce following paragraph from the affidavit of respondent No.4, instead of putting the same as our reasons. "During investigation, the Investigating Officer alongwith staff made vigorous search of the missing person in forest, various ponds and rivers. His photographs were also screened on television as well as it was also published in Maharashtra Police Gazette, district Police gazette. Pamphlets with photographs of missing persons have been distributed in weekly markets and in all the police stations of Nagpur Jurisdiction including rural as well as urban. The pamphlets with photographs have also been distributed in other districts also. A wireless message has also been circulated in the whole Nagpurdistrict including rural as well as urban. Likewise a vigorous search was conducted within the jurisdiction of Pandharpurtemple, police station Khandala, district Satara Police Station Shivaji Terminus, Mumbai." 7. Upon perusal of the said efforts taken by the investigating agency/Police Machinery we are satisfied that the respondents have done their best to trace out the missing person and no lacuna in their functioning can be pointed out. Some contradictions or discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses can not wash away the efforts taken by the investigating agency and police machinery to trace out the missing person. Some contradictions or discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses can not wash away the efforts taken by the investigating agency and police machinery to trace out the missing person. That apart, the contention of respondent No.3 in his affidavit about quarrelsome nature of Sampat Wade and criminal offences which took place in the village during that period cannot be ignored. 8. At any rate, in our opinion, it is too late now to consider the prayers made by the petitioner for handing over the investigation to any other agency, looking to the lapse of period of about 11 years in the meanwhile. That being so, we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. Hence the following order. ORDER The writ petition is disposed of in view of the efforts made by the investigating agency for tracing out the missing person i.e. father of the petitioner. All the prayers in the petition are rejected. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.