IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 8 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.13 OF 2025 Mohammad Imran Dashrath Dhogde @ Krishna Dhogde, Age 40 yrs., Occ. Business, R/o Deglur Naka, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. … Applicant … Versus … 1 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2 Special Inspector General of Police, MHADA Colony, Nanded, Dist. Nanded. 3 Abhinash Kumar, The Superintendent of Police, Nanded, Dist. Nanded. 4 In- charge Police Inspector, Itwara Police Station, Nanded, Dist. Nanded. 5 Sushilkumar Kashiram Nayak, Investigating Officer, Itwara Police Station, Nanded, Dist. Nanded. … Respondents ... Mr. M.K. Bhosale, Advocate for petitioner Mr. A.R. Kale, APP for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 2025:BHC-AUG:7104-DB 2 8_Cri.WP_13_2025 ... CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 07th MARCH, 2025 ORDER : 1 Present writ petition has been filed invoking the constitutional powers of this Court for following reliefs : “(B) By issuing appropriate writ, order, direction or any other appropriate order in the nature of writ, Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to change the investigation officer of the said crime bearing No.FIR/433/2024, registered with respondent No.4. (C) By issuing appropriate Writ, order, direction or any other appropriate order in the nature of writ, Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent police to add the accused persons those involved in crime bearing No.FIR/0433/2024 as per the complaint and representation dated 02.12.2024 by the petitioner. (D) By issuing appropriate Writ, order, direction or any other appropriate order in the nature of writ, Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent police to arrest all accused persons in present FIR/0433/2024.” 3 8_Cri.WP_13_2025 2 Heard learned Advocate for petitioner and learned APP, who waives notice for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. 3 Learned Advocate for petitioner submits that the police authority have intentionally not taken petitioner’s First Information Report as per his statement. He was required to approach the Grievance Redressal Forum. The petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste, whose case certificate has been issued on 30.07.2010. He had entered into an agreement to purchase an immovable property with one Sayyad Nurul-Haq on 29.05.2024. He had given the earnest amount to the seller. When after the agreement to sell was executed on 02.09.2024, he and his cousin sister went near the house, which he intended to purchase. At that time one Sayyad Shahid-Ul-Haq and his sons raised quarrel, abused him in the name of caste and submitted that the said area belongs to Muslims and he was assaulted and threatened. This kind of First Information Report was taken on 30.11.2024 though the incident had taken place on 02.09.2024. It came to be registered vide Crime No.433/2024 with Itwara Police Station, Nanded. However, in November, 2024 petitioner had made complaint against D.S.P., Nanded, Police Inspector, Itwara Police Station, Nanded with the Grievance Redressal Forum i.e. complaint No.153/2024 stating that even the wife of said Sayyed Shahif-Ul-Haq and one Sayyed Anisa were also involved and had taken active part in the 4 8_Cri.WP_13_2025 incident. They have been unnecessarily dropped from First Information Report. Thereafter also the petitioner has made grievances with various authorities, but cognizance has not been taken and, therefore, it appears that the Investigating Officer is handing gloves with the accused persons and want to protect those accused who have been left out. Hence, present petition. 4 At the outset, it is to be noted that First Information Report has been lodged first and it has been duly signed as it appears by present petitioner. There is a specific statement in the same, “rjh] ojhy pkS?kkaoj dk;ns’khj dkjokbZ djkoh- ek>k tckc ek>s lkax.ksizek.ks lax.kdkoj VkbZi dsyk- R;kph ,d izr dk<qu eh okpqu ikfgyk- rks cjkscj o [kjk vkgs-” There is no explanation in the petition as to why he had signed the said First Information Report, if it was not agreeable to him. Later on, the additions cannot be so allowed. Even if he would have filed the said complaint with the Grievance Redressal Forum earlier; yet, if his First Information Report was not as per his complaint with the Grievance Redressal Forum or the fact, then he could have refused to sign the First Information Report. On that point only there is no question of direction to change the Investigating Officer. 5 As regards the addition of accused persons are concerned, if involvement is there, then still at any point of time the accused can be added, if before the concerned Court there is evidence, such power is there under 5 8_Cri.WP_13_2025 Section 358 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (old Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). It gives the power to concerned Judge/Magistrate during the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which a person could be tried together with the accused, then such Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he would be committed. The prayer clause ‘D’ is in respect of arrest to all accused persons, but no such writ can be issued. As regards arrest is concerned, it is within the prerogative of Investigating Officer and said principles of law. Therefore, no question of invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, writ petition stands dismissed at the threshold. ( SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) agd