Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Justification set up to claim transfer of investigation, we are afraid, we are unable to share, the apprehension expressed, we quite understand. Present case, as is clear from our packed Court room, has generated a lot of interest. May be even a controversy.

3. It all started on 23rd of July, 1996. Ramesh Kini made a disappearance from his residential house in Laxmi Niwas, Matunga. He is said to have met his end in Alka Talkies in Pune during, the night show. Paradoxically movie being screened was "Broken Arrow". At the Sassoon Hospital he was declared dead. On his person note was found in which he had written that he was committing suicide and reasons are known to his Advocate. It transpires that Ramesh Kini, on the 23rd July, 1996 at 9.30 a.m., had handed over two letters in a closed cover to Advocate Lad. In one of them, he had stated that he was threatened and mentally tortured by his landlords Laxmichand Shah and Suman Shah, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein, forcing him to leave his flat. Landlords, with the help of Political high-ups were trying to usurp the flat by paying him a paltry amount. The landlords are stated to be extremely close to Raj Thackeray as also Balasaheb Thackeray, leaders of the Shiv Sena Party, which along with B.J.P. runs the State Government. They are regular visitors to the house of the landlords. According to Sheela Kini, (widow of the deceased Ramesh Kini), Ramesh had been called at Sena Bhavan several times and was regularly terrorised and mentally tortured. He was informed by the landlords, respondents Nos. 4 and 5, that the matter was to be looked into by Raj Thackeray. However, since the matter was of little significance, the same had been entrusted to Ashutosh Rane, the respondent No.6 herein. The mental torture meted out to Ramesh, according to the letter left behind by Ramesh may lead him to suicide.

4. Ramesh Kini, as per Sheela Kini, left their residential house on 23rd of July, 1996 to attend a meeting at the Samna Office. He was not seen alive thereafter. Sheela was informed of the death by her relations, the next day. Investigation into the mysterious death was intimated by the Pune Police. On the request made by Sheela, investigation was handed over to the State C.I.D. While investigation was in progress, present petitions are filed. On 17th August, 1996 this Court (Coram: A.V. Savant & D.K. Deshmukh, JJ.) passed an interim order. The same is a speaking order which considers the prayer made by petitioners to transfer investigation from State C.I.D. to C.B.I. It has taken into account the grounds set up to claim transfer of investigation from the State C.I.D. to the C.B.I. in para 7 of the order, note is taken of a contention that there is a cover-up by the Police at Pune about the Circumstances in which Ramesh was found dead in Alka Talkies. Note is also taken of a note found on the person of Ramesh. It takes note of the criticism in respect of the post mortem having been performed in undue haste and the perfunctory conclusions drawn in respect of the cause of death. Inaction on the part of the State Government to take timely action against bail orders having been obtained in favour of those suspected to be involved in the crime, is taken note of and, last and not the least, objection that those who are suspected to be guilty are close confidants of Shiv Sena leaders Raj Thackeray and Balasaheb Thackeray and hence a fear that investigation will not be carried out honestly and objectively, is also taken note of. Contentions advanced by the learned Advocate General as also the Advocates appearing on behalf of the landlords Laxmichand Shah and Suman Shah and Ashutosh Rane are considered. The law and the case law on the point cited before them has been taken into account and an order is passed continuing the investigation with the State C.I.D. with certain directions. Officers of the State C.I.D. who are entrusted with the investigation, are directed to act only under the direct supervision of the Additional General Director of Police State C.I.D. Shri R.S. Mendonca. They are made answerable firstly to Shri Mendonca and then finally to this Court and none else. Shri Mendonca is directed to report to this Court and to none else the progress of the investigation, firstly on Wednesday 21st August, 1996 and then on Wednesday 28th August, 1996. He has been directed to submit two copies of his report in sealed envelopes. It is finally directed that pending the investigation, officers entrusted with the investigation of the case, will not be transferred or relieved from their duties without first seeking permission from this Court.

22. We also cannot overlook the fact that persons who are allegedly involved are prominent personalities having a clout with leaders of the Shiv Sena Party, a party in power, ruling this State. Allegations are levelled against one Raj Thackeray, nephew of Shri Balasaheb Thackeray who heads the Shiv Sena Party. Allegations are made in respect of possibility of murder having been committed. In the backdrop of these facts, we cannot overlook the fact that though the State C.I.D. has been kept out of control and influence of the State machinery as far as the present investigation is concerned, the same is under the State machinery for all other purposes. As far as the statement, which was made by the Honourable the Chief Minister on the floor of the house on the 5th of August, 1996 is concerned, we find that the same was necessitated on account of the public demand. Affidavit in reply of Shri A.D. Karkhanis, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, points out that for almost a week proceedings of both the Houses were paralysed vehemently voicing grievances in relation to the death of Shri Kini. In the circumstances, we find that the Chief Minister was justified in making a statement on the floor of the House in response to the demand made. The statement made by the Chief Minister, as disclosed in the affidavit, is as under:

(i) According to the statements of Smt. Kini, and Sandeep Vaidya and available evidence, it is clear that deceased Shri Kini never met Shri Raj Thackeray. Similarly, Shri Raj Thackeray never participated in negotiations about sale of flat. However, the landlord and his son were misusing the name of Shri Raj Thackeray to bring pressure on deceased Shri Kini for this purpose. This will make it clear that Raj Thackeray had no connection with this case.

(ii) There is circumstantial evidence that Shri Rane pressurised deceased Shri Kini in this case.