Bombay high court pulls up Mumbai police in dowry case; shifts probe to CID

Pulling up the Mumbai police for shoddy investigations in a matter of dowry harassment, the Bombay high court has ordered transfer of the case to Maharashtra CID.

It also directed that the probe be conducted by an officer not below the rank of deputy superintendent of police.

The order was delivered on December 22 by a bench headed by Justice AM Khanvilkar on a petition filed by Sangeeta Dharap, a housewife.

The petitioner alleged that her husband and in-laws had tried to throw her from the fourth floor balcony of her matrimonial home and were also not returning the `streedhan' (gold ornaments) brought by her at the time of marriage.

The court asked the state government to transfer the investigation to the CID not later than December 31.

The judges observed, "We hope and trust that the newly appointed agency will examine the matter from all angles and conduct such investigation as may be essential in accordance with law so that the complaint of the petitioner is taken to its logical end."

Sangeeta had complained to Dadar police on October 27, 2009 about alleged unruly behaviour of her in-laws pertaining to Section 498 A IPC (dowry harassment) and 406 IPC (misusing property for own gains), her lawyer Mahesh Vaswani said.

However, her complaint of alleged attempt to murder was subsequently added on December 12 last year. The chargesheet was eventually filed on April 3 during the pendency of this petition.

Vaswani told the court that the investigating officer (IO) had not taken serious and meaningful steps to recover the `streedhan'. The IO had also failed to even adhere to basic investigating skills of visiting the spot and drawing a spot `panchnama' when charges included attempt to murder, he said.

The court noted that the IO had visited the spot only on November 24 during the pendency of the petition.

"No explanation was forthcoming as to what prevented him from conducting the spot panchnama earlier, much less before the submission of the chargesheet, which happened as back as April 3, 2010," the court observed.

The judges further noted, "more so, why the IO has failed to file a charge sheet without complying with this basic requirement though the allegation was one of offence under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder)".

"Besides, we are in agreement with the grievance of the petitioner that the IO has not done enough for recovery of streedhan of the petitioner."

The court also noted that the respondent-husband (Rajesh Dharap) had written to the IO on December 13 last year, saying all gold ornaments left behind by his wife at the time of leaving the house had been duly returned to her.

"However, nothing further has been done by the IO. That would indicate that he accepted the statement given by the husband as it is, without himself investigating into its correctness.

"That pre-supposes that the investigation has been done in a very casual manner," the judges noted, adding in their opinion it was a fit case to be transferred to CID.