Back
2022 Supreme(Bom) 1675
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Vibha Kankanwadi, Rajesh S. Patil, JJ.
Sushilabai, W/o. Vaijinath Pawar - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1703 Of 2018
Decided On : 28-09-2022
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.R. Andhale.
For the Respondents: Mr. B.V. Virdhe, Mr. S.S. Ambore.
Approaching the court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be within a reasonable time and not vitiated by inordinate delay and latches.
Headnote:
Criminal Writ Petition - Investigation Delay - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 482 - Article 226 - [Vipin Kumar Gupta v. Sarvesh Mahajan, MANU/DE/0418/2019] - The court dismissed the petition due to the petitioner's highly belated approach, emphasizing the need for approaching the court within a reasonable time and not being vitiated by inordinate delay and latches.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's husband went missing in 2002, and despite filing a complaint, no investigation was conducted. The petitioner approached the court after 16 years seeking direction for investigation, but the court dismissed the petition due to the belated approach.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's approach was highly belated and lacked any explanation for the delay, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after such a long delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for approaching the court within a reasonable time and not being vitiated by inordinate delay and latches, citing the legal position that a petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C must be filed within a reasonable time.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition as highly belated, but granted the petitioner the liberty to take recourse to alternate remedy, if available under the law.
JUDGMENT :
[Rajesh S. Patil, J.] :
1. The Criminal Writ Petition has been filed on 04.11.2018 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking the following reliefs:-
i) That, the respondent no.1 and 2 may kindly be directed to investigate the alleged complaint dated 30.06.2002 lodged by the petitioner and her husband namely Vaijinath Gunaji Pawar may be produced before this Hon’ble Court.
ii) That the respondent no. 1 and 2 may kindly be directed or ordered that, the investigation may be started against the respondent no. 3 to 9 and registered the cognizable offence, if they are found responsible for the committing any offence and grabbed the property of her husband.
iii) If any delay caused to file this writ petition my kindly be condoned.
iv) If the respondent no. 1 and 2 failed to investigate the alleged complaint the matter may be referred to CID Department for further investigation by issuing appropriate writ or directions by this Hon’ble Court.
FACTS : -
2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Writ Petition that her husband had gone towards the river on 27.06.2002 and he did not return to the house thereafter. Respondent nos. 3 to 5 had informed that the husband of petitioner had swept away in a flooded river. She had filed a complaint with the Police Station, Gangakhed on 30.06.2002, but, the police authority did not take any cognizance of the same. Due to non-cognizance of the complaint by the police, she had approached various authorities of the Government. She had even made a representation to the then Hon’ble Chief Minister of Maharashtra thereby requesting to direct inquiry through CID in the alleged murder of her husband.
3. The petitioner further stated that, she had learnt from the record that the immovable property of land Gut No. 67 of village Wazur was mutated in the name of Manchakrao Bapurao Pawar by executing registered sale deed on behalf of the present petitioner which is, in fact, bogus and fabricated one. She further stated that the land adm. 65 Are out of Gut No. 63 was transferred in the name of Yenubai Hiraman Pawar i.e. respondent no. 8, by registered sale deed dated 25.03.2004 and the said document was signed by one Kondbai Vaijnath Pawar, who is neither wife of deceased nor legal heir of the petitioner and that the petitioner has doubt that the respondent nos. 2 to 4 have committed the murder of her husband. It is further stated that, even the mutation entry also effected in 7/12 extract in the name of alleged accused/respondents and they are illegally enjoying the suit property.
4. Though the complaint is filed in the year 2002, neither her husband was traced out by the police nor the investigation has been conducted into the crime. The respondents/accused are hand in glove with police authority and therefore there has been no investigation in the offence in question.
SUBMISSIONS : -
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by inaction of the respondents/police authority in not conducting investigation against the respondent nos. 3 to 9. In this regard, petitioner had made several complaints/representations for conducting investigation into the crime but no action whatsoever has been taken thereupon. As such, the instant petition has been filed seeking the reliefs referred to herein above.
6. Per contra, learned APP for the respondents/State objected to grant of reliefs on the ground of inordinate delay and latches, which is unexplained in petition.
ANALYSIS : -
7. The question arises as to whether it would be proper for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after such a long delay. Though there is no period of limitation prescribed within which a petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C ought to be filed yet, if a petitioner fails to address convincingly the reasons for latches and inordinate delay, the Court would not exercise its jurisdiction under S
