Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Bom) 543

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A. S. Gadkari, Shyam C. Chandak, JJ.
Jaydeep Dilip Taware - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1075 of 2021 with Writ Petition No.3595 of 2021
Decided On : 11-06-2024

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Ashok Mundargi, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Rupesh Zade, Ms. Priyanka Gupta for Appellant in Appeal No.1075 of 2021.; Mr. M.S. Mohite, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Nilesh Wable for Respondent No.2 in Appeal No.1075 of 2021.; Mr. Umesh Mankapure i/b Mr. Nilesh Wable a/w Mr. Sumet Khaire for Petitioners in Writ Petition No.3595 of 2021., Mr. J.P Yagnik, A.PP for State.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that while the police have the exclusive right to conduct investigations, the judiciary has a duty to ensure that such investigations are conducted fairly and without bias, particularly in cases involving serious allegations.

Headnote:
MCOC Act - Criminal Procedure - Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999; Section 12; Criminal Procedure Code; Section 169 - The court discussed the provisions of the MCOC Act and the Cr.PC, particularly focusing on the powers of the police and the magistrate regarding investigations. It emphasized that while the police have the exclusive right to investigate, the court can intervene if the investigation is found to be inadequate or biased. The court ultimately directed a more thorough investigation into the allegations against the appellant, highlighting the need for a fair and unbiased inquiry.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, accused of involvement in a shooting incident linked to political and business rivalry, challenged a trial court order that rejected a police report exonerating him and directed further investigation based on witness statements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had sufficient grounds to question the adequacy of the police investigation, noting that the police had not properly considered witness statements and had potentially overlooked evidence of conspiracy. The court upheld the trial court's directive for further investigation but modified the order to remove the requirement for a charge-sheet submission.
Issues: Whether the trial court had the authority to direct further investigation and compel the police to submit a charge-sheet, and whether the investigation conducted by the police was adequate and unbiased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that while the police have the prerogative to investigate, the court can intervene if it finds the investigation to be inadequate or biased. It emphasized the importance of a fair investigation in upholding the rights of the parties involved.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the trial court's order to remove the directive for a charge-sheet while maintaining the requirement for further investigation. The investigation was ordered to be transferred to the Crime Investigation Department for a more thorough inquiry.

JUDGMENT

A.S. Gadkari, J. - Appellant, Original Accused No.-6, has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1075 of 2021 under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short, 'the MCOC Act'), impugning the Order dated 9th December, 2021 passed below Exh-32 in Special MCOCA Case No.921 of 2021, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, allowing the Protest Petition (Exh-32) filed by the Respondent No.1, the informant, rejecting the Report dated 2nd December, 2021 under Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, Cr.PC.), filed by the Investigating Officer and directing the Investigating Officer to conduct detailed investigation in the line of statement of injured Raviraj Taware and other witnesses and submit the charge-sheet against the Appellant.

2. Respondent No.2 in Appeal No.1075 of 2021 and Petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No.3595 of 2021, is the first informant in C.R. No.350 of 2021, registered with Baramati Police Station, Pune (Rural) and Petitioner No.2 is the injured victim in the crime bearing C.R. No.350 of 2021. Petitioners have prayed for transfer of investigation of the said C.R. No.350 of 2021 registered with Baramati Police Station to C.I.D., C.B.I. or any other independent investigation machinery and for a direction to add Ravindra Kale as accused in the said crime as per the statement of injured witness, Petitioner No.2.

3. Hereinafter Mr. Jaydeep Taware will be termed as 'Appellant' and Respondent No.2 in Criminal Appeal No.1075 of 2021 and Petitioners in Writ Petition No.3595 of 2021 will be termed as 'Petitioner/s'.

4. Heard Mr. Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel for Appellant in Appeal No.1075 of 2021, Mr. Mohite, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.2 in Appeal No.1075 of 2021, Mr. Mankapure, learned Advocate for Petitioners in Writ Petition No.3595 of 2021 and Mr. J.P Yagnik, learned A.PP for State. Perused entire record and the Affidvit-in-reply dated 31st January, 2022 filed by Shri. Ganesh P Ingle, Sub-Div. Police Officer, Baramati.

5. Record reveals that, Mrs. Rohini R. Taware, the Petitioner No.1 lodged F.I.R. bearing No.350 of 2021 dated 1st January, 2021 with Baramati Police Station, District Pune (Rural) under Sections 307, 120-B, 504, 506 read with 34 of the I.PC. and under Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, for an incident occurred on 31st May, 2021.

5.1. It is the prosecution case that, on 31st May, 2021 at about 6.45 p.m. the Petitioner No.1 and her husband i.e. Petitioner No.2 had been to the house of Mr. Saad Shaikh for collecting the parcel of Vada-Pav. Her husband alighted from their car and went to receive the said parcel. At that time, accused Akash More along with an unknown person came on a motorcycle bearing No. MH-42-AY-9692. Akash More fired a bullet from a gun on the person of Petitioner No.2. The Petitioner No.2 started running to save himself. Akash More tried to fire another round, however it did not hit. At that time, Akash More shouted loudly and told the Petitioner No.2 that, 'Chikoo Patil (Appellant) will not leave him, you will be finished/wipped out' and thereafter fled from the scene of offence. In this brief premise, the said C.R. No. 350 of 2021 was lodged by the Petitioner No.1 initially against four persons namely (i) Prashant Popatrao More (ii) Tom @ Vinod Popatrao More (iii) Akash Prashant More and one unknown person. The motive behind the crime is stated to be political and business rivalry arising out of monetary loss suffered by accused out of civil contracts allotted by local Authorities and to create reign of terror in the vicinity for gaining pecuniary benefit.

5.2. During the course of investigation, concerned Investigating Officer found that the accused Prashant More (A-1) is running an organized crime syndicate and therefore he submitted a proposal dated 9th June, 2021, seeking approval for invoking the provisions of MCOC Act to the said crime initially against four accused persons. The Special Inspector General of Police, Kolhapu