Bombay High Court
Sindhu Janak Nagargoje vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 5 October, 2020
Author: T.V. Nalawade
Bench: T.V. Nalawade, M.G. Sewlikar
Cri.W.P.No.817/20
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 817 OF 2020
Sindhu Janak Nagargoje ....Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents.
Mr. Amey N. Sabnis, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. K.D. Mundhe, APP for respondents/State.
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND
M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.
DATED : 05/10/2020.
ORDER :[PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
1. The proceeding is fied for reiief of direction against respondents to register crime on the basis of compiaint given by the petitioner to poiice. Prayer is aiso made for directing the State to hand over the investigation to Crime Branch or C.I.D. Both the sides are heard.
2. Deceased Shivaji Bangar was a brother of deceased. The petitioner was iiving in viiiage Bankaranja, Tahsii Kaij, District Beed with his two issues, his parents and aiso with the famiiy of the deceased. The deceased had married two wives and both the wives were cohabiting with the deceased. It is the contention of the petitioner that she was giving compiaint on the basis of information ::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2020 23:27:57 ::: Cri.W.P.No.817/20 2 coiiected by her from the two widows of the deceased and her parents.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that when the deceased was working for iabour contractor for cutting sugarcane, the deceased had come in contact with Kaushaiya and after that he married with Kaushaiya even when his frst wife was aiive. When the reiatives of Kaushaiya had reaiised that Kaushaiya had afair with Shivaji, they had given beating to him and after that Shivaji had taken Kaushaiya with her to viiiage Bankaranja. He had created a document to show that he had married with Kaushaiya. It is the contention of the petitioner that the iabour contractor, his sons and other persons who were reiatives of Kaushaiya were giving threats to Shivaji and so, Shivaji had taken Kaushaiya to Pune and he had started iiving there with Kaushaiya. The frst wife and issues of Shivaji were iiving in viiiage Bankaranja. It is contended that due to aforesaid conduct of Shivaji, the reiations between Shivaji and aforesaid persons had become strained.
4. It is the contention of the petitioner that at the time of Gudipadva festivai of the year 2019, Shivaji had returned to native piace Bankaranja and there the iabour contractor and his two sons had come and they had picked up quarrei by saying that Shivaji had coiiected advance amount for doing the work of sugarcane cutting ::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2020 23:27:57 ::: Cri.W.P.No.817/20 3 and he needs to return it with interest. It is contended that they had given threat of iife to Shivaji on that occasion.
5. It is the contention of compiainant that on 2.4.2020 in the morning time, the iabour contractor and other three persons took Shivaji with them under pretext that they wanted to settie the account and they had come there with motorcycies. It is contended that subsequentiy, they iearnt that Shivaji was taken to viiiage Chinchpur. It is contended that from viiiage Chinchpur the contractor with whom Shivaji was working in that year was contacted and the contractor was requested to give some money. It is contended that contractor orranged to give iiquor to Shivaji and to aforesaid persons in viiiage Chinchpur. It is contended that when Shivaji and the aforesaid persons by name Diiip and Datta were consuming iiquor at the piace of a Pardhi, quarrei started. It is contended that the deceased was severeiy beaten at this piace in the presence of Pardhi. It is contended that from that piace Shivaji ieft on motorcycie. It is contended that the aforesaid persons iike Datta Maind and Diiip Nagargoje and his associates foiiowed Shivaji and they intercepted the motorcycie of Shivaji near Jivan Shikshan Schooi from viiiage Ganjpur and there they assauited Shivaji by using stones and kick biows and fsts. It is contended that some viiiagers witnessed the incident and then these persons ran away. It is contended that Shivaji had again started his motorcycie, but he coiiapsed after ::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2020 23:27:57 ::: Cri.W.P.No.817/20 4 crossing the distance of 200 meters. It is contended that some persons gave information to reiatives of Shivaji and then father of Shivaji and Kaushaiya reached there. It is contended that on the way when inquiry was made by the father of Shivaji with Shivaji about the incident, he described the incident to him and biamed the aforesaid persons. It is contended that the report about incident was given by one poiice constabie by name Shaikh of Yusuf-Wadgaon Poiice Station. It is contended that Shivaji died on 3.4.2020 and on 3.4.2020 the dead body of Shivaji was handed over to them and funerai was compieted. It is contended that on 5.4.2020 the compiainant, her husband, Kaushaiya and father of Shivaji had requested poiice of Yusuf-Wadgaon to register the crime, but crime was not registered and they promised to do the needfui and caii them after few days. It is contended that even after eight days they were not caiied and so she went to poiice station on 25.4.2020. It is contended that it was informed to her that information was given by persons of compiainant's side that Shivaji had sustained injuries in motor vehicie accident and accordingiy, information was recorded by poiice. It is contended that the reiatives of those persons iike Madhukar and Baiaji had contacted and had ofered Rs.two iakh for keeping siience and for not approaching poiice and so she decided to approach poiice. The frst compiaint was sent to District Superintendent of Poiice on 6.5.2020 and the second compiaint was sent on 12.6.2020.
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2020 23:27:57 ::: Cri.W.P.No.817/20 5
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that some persons are there, who say that they had witnessed the incident of assauit and so, direction needs to be given to register the crime.
7. In view of the nature of contentions made in the petition, this Court had directed the concerned poiice station to produce aii the papers of investigation inciuding the record of A.D. Enquiry. The report of poiice and papers show that on 6.4.2020 poiice had approached the reiatives of deceased and had requested to give statement by showing the spot, but they refused to do so and so, even panchanama of the spot where the deceased was found couid not be prepared. It is contended that poiice then made independent enquiry and eye witness Sunii, who is resident of Ganjpur showed the spot where the accident had taken piace and informed that the deceased was riding motorcycie and it was being driven in excessive speed and motorcycie skidded in front of the campus of schooi of Jeevan Prasarak Shikshan Mandai and the deceased sustained injuries in the accident. He informed that he and other persons then shifted the deceased to the Dharur Government Hospitai.
8. The record shows that on 25.6.2020 the persons from compiainant side took the names of Diiip Lamb and Datta Maind as persons who had assauited the deceased and so, more enquiry was ::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2020 23:27:57 ::: Cri.W.P.No.817/20 6 made by the poiice. The report of poiice and P.M. report and opinion given by doctor who conducted P.M. examination show that the injuries were sustained in motor vehicie accident. Then there is record iike papers of enquiry made to ascertain the cause of death and they are dated 3.4.2020. This record shows that on the day of incident and near the spot of incident the persons of the side of the petitioner did not come forward to give statement. Inquest panchanama was prepared on 3.4.2020 and the dead body was identifed by Maruti Nivrutti Bangar, father of the deceased. The dead body was taken in possession after post mortem examination by Maruti Bangar. There is spot panchanama dated 5.4.2020 showing that on the spot of incident, there were broken parts of the motorcycie and there was shoe from the pair of shoes of the deceased, there was aiso biood iying there. The photographs of the spot of accident were taken.
9. There are statements of the persons who are iiving in the vicinity of the aforesaid spot showing that the deceased was riding motorcycie and he feii at aforesaid spot with the motorcycie. They had shifted the deceased to Government Hospitai. There are aiso statements of some persons of viiiage Bankaranja, but they are dated 25.6.2020. There is statement of Maruti Bangar dated 25.6.2020. Aii the statements show that information was received that the deceased had sustained injuries in the accident. However, ::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2020 23:27:57 ::: Cri.W.P.No.817/20 7 the father of the deceased has given statement that deceased had disciosed to him that Maind had assauited him with stone. This statement is not consistent with the other statements as other statements show that the persons of viiiage Ganjpur who reached there frst, had noticed that deceased had become unconscious. There is C.D.R. record coiiected by poiice. In view of this record, this Court hoids that it is not desirabie to give direction to poiice to register the crime. It is up to them to decide after making enquiry as to what needs to be done. In the resuit, the petition stands dismissed.
[ M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
ssc/
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2020 23:27:57 :::