Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 633 (BOM)

Shubha v. State of Maharashtra

2015-03-03

A.B.CHAUDHARI, P.N.DESHMUKH

body2015
JUDGMENT : A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the rival parties. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. Criminal Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this Common judgment and order. 3. Following are the prayer Nos. (i) and (ii) in the writ petitions which read thus:- "(i) Direct the respondent No. 1 to transfer the investigation in Crime No. M-1/2013 registered by Police Station Butibori, Nagpur (respondent No. 4) on 06.07.2013 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 465, 467, 468 R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860 to any other competent Police Station or the Crime Branch under the authority of respondent No. 3, with further directions to reinvestigate or investigate afresh into the crime, in view of above and to meet the ends of justice; (ii) Or in the alternative direct the respondent No. 4 to expedite the proper, free and fair investigation in Crime No. M-1/2013 registered by Police Station Butibori, Nagpur (respondent No. 4) on 06.07.2013 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860 and submit final report before the learned Magistrate, in view of above and to meet the ends of justice." 4. In response to the above prayers, the learned APP relying on the affidavit-reply filed by the State submits that FIR has been registered. He further submits that having registered FIR, further investigation will be conducted. 5. Shri Moon the learned counsel submits that though the FIR was registered, the investigation went at a tardy space and that is why he was required to file these Writ Petitions in this Court. He, therefore, prays for allowing prayer clause No. (2) for expeditious investigation. 6. Shri Mirza, the learned APP, submits that the nature of the dispute being a land dispute, the time-frame cannot be laid, but still the Investigating Agency would take steps to complete the investigation, as early as possible. 7. Ms. A.P. Gupta, the learned counsel, submits that she has applied for intervention in all these petitions. Shri Moon submits that these are the proposed accused persons, who have filed intervention applications and that is not maintainable and relied on the decision of Dinubhai Goghabhai Solanki Vs. 7. Ms. A.P. Gupta, the learned counsel, submits that she has applied for intervention in all these petitions. Shri Moon submits that these are the proposed accused persons, who have filed intervention applications and that is not maintainable and relied on the decision of Dinubhai Goghabhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in, (2014) 4 SCC 626 : [2014 ALL MR (Cri) 1132 (S.C.)], for opposing the intervention applications. She has shown the judgment in the case of Ram Biraji Devi & Anr. v. Umesh Kumar Singh & Anr. reported in AIR 2006 SC 2035 : [2006 ALL MR (Cri) 2402 (S.C.)] and submitted that for quashing of FIR, power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised because the transaction, alleged to have taken place, is of more than two decades old. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for rival parties, we are of the opinion that the applications for intervention are not maintainable. Hence, all these applications i.e. (APPW No. 364/2014, APPW No. 365/2014 APPW No. 366/2014, APPW No. 367/2014 and APPW No. 368/2014 are disposed of as not maintainable. Insofar as the Criminal Writ Petitions are concerned, in the light of statements made by the learned APP so also by Advocate Moon, we think that the only order is possible order at this stage that could be made is as under:- ORDER Writ Petition Nos. 850/2014, 851/2014. 852/2014, 853/2014 and 899/2014 are disposed of, with an expectation that the Investigating machinery shall investigate the matter expeditiously, as early as possible. All five petitions are disposed of.