RENUKA BHOLANATH PATIL AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
WP/3810/2014 · 2026-02-20
Shri A S Gadkari, Shri Shyam C Chandak
body2014
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2014 DAILYLAW 2654 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2014 DAILYLAW 2654 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
P. H. Jayani /DTG 26 WP3810.2014.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3810 OF 2014 Smt. Renuka Bholanath Patil and ors. …. Petitioners v/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. …. Respondents ________________________________ Mr. R.D. Suryawanshi a/w. Ms. Ketkee Kamble for the Petitioners. Mr. Ajay Patil, APP for the Respondent – State. Ms. Jayashri Sawant, PI, State CID, Kokanbhavan, Navi Mumbai. ________________________________ CORAM: A.S. GADKARI AND
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
DATED : 20th FEBRUARY, 2026.
P. C. :- 1) Learned APP tendered across the Bar a detail Report of Investigation duly signed by Smt. Jayashri Sawant, Police Inspector, State CID, Navi Mumbai. 1.1) The various steps adopted in investigating present crime i.e. C.R.No.I-372/2011 registered with Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station including the Narco Analysis Test conducted on four persons, have been elaborately stated therein. The steps taken in investigation pertaining to Accidental Death Report No.214/2011 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. for the death of prime suspect namely Jitendra Ramdas Patil are also stated in the said Report.
1/2
P. H. Jayani /DTG 26 WP3810.2014.doc 1.2) It is stated that, after putting her substantial efforts in last many years, nothing is revealed to file charge-sheet against a particular accused person and therefore the Investigating Agency will be filing ‘A-Summary Report’ before the concerned Court. She tendered across the bar a photocopy of the said Summary Report to be filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The said Report is taken on record. 2) We permit the Investigating Agency to file respective ‘A-Summary Reports’ before the jurisdictional Magistrate. 3) In view of the above, we are of the opinion that, keeping the Petition pending further is of no avail and is accordingly disposed off.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
2/2