906 WO 3331 OF 2019.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3331 OF 2019 Pratap Bhiku Asabe …Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. …Respondents Mr. Sanjeev P. Kadam a/w. Mr. Bhalchandra Shinde i/b. Mr. Jitendra Gaikwad, advocate for the Petitioner. Dr. Dhanlakshmi S. Krishnaiyer, APP for the Respondent–State. Mr. V.V. Purwant a/w. Mr. Vignesh Ashokan i/b. Mr. Sachin H. Deokar, advocate for Respondent No.5. PSI Waghmare H. Z. Indapur Police Station, Pune Rural, Pune present. CORAM: MANISH PITALE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 19th NOVEMBER 2025. PC:- 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the police machinery in carrying out proper investigation in the context of First Information Report (FIR) No. 0566 of 2016 dated 15th October, 2016, registered with police station Indapur, District–Pune. The statement of the first informant leading to registration of FIR, reveals, that in the backdrop of a dispute regarding alleged encroachment by the petitioner, a letter dated 23rd May, 2016, was issued from the office of the Tehsildar for providing police protection to the private respondents in this petition to reach the spot concerning the dispute between the parties and to carry out measurements. Page 1 of 7 19th November 2025 Rajeshri Aher RAJESHRI PRAKASH AHER Digitally signed by RAJESHRI PRAKASH AHER Date: 2025.11.20 15:11:24 +0530 906 WO 3331 OF 2019.DOC 2. The first informant suspected that the letter was issued on the basis of false assertions made by the private respondents, particularly because the said letter referred to an order passed by the office of the Tahashildar regarding removal of encroachment. 3. The first informant raised a grievance that, since the dispute regarding the allegation of encroachment made against him was still pending in the office of the Tahshildar, there was no question of issuance of such a letter for grant of police protection. On that basis, it was alleged that the respondent nos. 7 to 10 had indulged in fabrication of documents and thereby they had cheated the police as well as the petitioner. 4. The petitioner contends that investigation in the present case was carried out in a shoddy manner and the chargesheet filed in the matter arraigned only the respondent nos. 7 to 10 as accused, making no reference to the office of the Tahashildar, without whose connivance such an act could not have been committed. 5. This Court granted stay of further proceedings in the case pending before the learned Magistrate which arose out of the aforesaid FIR and chargesheet by order dated 23rd October, 2023 and the interim order continued to operate. 6. During the pendency of this petition, a series of orders were passed as this Court was not satisfied with the affidavits filed by the investigating officer, Collector and other officials including respondent no.4 who was the Nayab Tahsildar, acting as Tahsildar at the relevant point of time and respondent no.5 who was working as a clerk in the office of the Tahasildar. Page 2 of 7 19th November 2025 Rajeshri Aher 906 WO 3331 OF 2019.DOC 7. The documents that came on record alongwith affidavits filed by various officials revealed that even the copy of the letter dated 23rd May, 2016, made available to the petitioner was different from the one that was purportedly produced from the original record and from the office of the Tahasildar. In that light, certain directions were issued. 8. Eventually on 11th June, 2025, this Court came to the conclusion that the investigating officer carried out the investigation in a targeted manner so as to implead only the private respondents. But, investigation was not carried out with regard to the role of the officials of the revenue authorities, particularly the office of the Tahasildar. In fact in paragraph 10 of the said order, this Court expressed strong dissatisfaction, not only with the quality of investigation carried out by the investigating officer, but also about the failure on the part of the Collector in carrying out inquiries against the responsible officers in the matter. Thereupon, this Court directed affidavits to be filed by the Additional Assistant Commissioner, Pune, duly endorsed by the Superintendent of Police Pune and also the Collector with approval of the Divisional Commissioner. 9. Pursuant thereto, the affidavits were placed on record. We find that the said affidavits do not reveal anything new and the same stand has been repeated in different words. The only new fact that has come on record is that the respondent no.4 i.e. the Nayab Tahasildar who was in charge as Tahasildar at the relevant point in time, was imposed with a penalty of adverse remark in her service record pursuant to inquiry completed against her and that 19th November 2025 Rajeshri Aher 906 WO 3331 OF 2019.DOC an inquiry was being completed as against respondent no. 5 i.e. the Clerk in the office of the Tahasildar. The learned APP orally informs this Court today that respondent no. 5 has also been visited with the penalty of adverse remarks in his service record. 10. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, despite repeated directions issued to the respondent authorities to come clean, the entire material has not been placed before this Court. It is evident that sincere attempt has not been made to get to the bottom of the matter and it is being portrayed that the aforesaid minor penalties being imposed upon respondent nos. 4 and 5 are enough to take care of the concerns of the petitioners. 11. It is vehemently submitted that no effort has been made to locate the purported order of the office of Tahasilar with regard to encroachment, which formed the basis for issuance of the said letter dated 23rd May, 2016, for police protection. This, despite the contradictory statements made by respondent nos. 4 and 5 during the course of investigation showing that a clear attempt has been made to shield the Government officials, and, therefore, it is submitted that this Court may consider allowing the petition directing transfer of investigation to the State C.I.D. with a specific direction for further investigation into the matter. 12. The learned APP relies upon the affidavits placed on record and submits that when the subject letter dated 23rd may, 2016, providing police protection itself was withdrawn on the instructions of respondent no.4 and actual act of the police reaching the subject land, was never undertaken, in the light of the 19th November 2025 Rajeshri Aher 906 WO 3331 OF 2019.DOC penalties imposed upon respondent nos. 4 and 5 for their negligence, this Court may not favorably consider the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 13. It is submitted that there is no order regarding the encroachment, as the proceedings are indeed pending before the authorities with regards to the question of encroachment, and, therefore, this Court may not grant the prayers made on behalf of the petitioner. 14. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5 i.e. the clerk working in the office of Tahasildar submits that, his statement to the police clearly reveals that since the private respondents i.e. Respondent no.7 to 10 gave an impression to him that there was no dispute pending and police protection was required only for carrying out measurement, the letter dated 23rd May, 2016, was inadvertently issued. The moment the mistake was realized, It was withdrawn and in that light, the grievance made by the petitioner against the said respondent is not justified. It is submitted that in these circumstances, the chargesheet having been filed, the case ought be taken to its logical conclusion. 15. We have considered the rival submissions in the light of the material placed on record. Numerous affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents alongwith documents, have not been able to deal with a specific reference to an order regarding encroachment purportedly passed by the officice of the Tahasildar, as mentioned in the said letter dated 23rd May, 2016. We do not find much force in the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent no.5 that it was only because of a wrong impression given by the respondent 19th November 2025 Rajeshri Aher 906 WO 3331 OF 2019.DOC nos. 7 to 10, that no dispute was pending and that the subject letter of police protection was drafted by him for the respondent No. 4 to sign and issue to the police authorities. His own statement is contradictory to the statement of respondent no. 4, as recorded during the course of investigation and this certainly creates a serious suspicion about the role of the said respondents and perhaps some others in the office of the Tahasildar with regard to the assertion made in the letter dated 23rd May, 2016, that an order regarding encroachment had been passed while in reality the dispute between the parties regarding encroachment was still pending. No sincere efforts appear to have been made to unearth the truth in the matter and the responsibility and involvement of the officials of the office of Tahasildar in the present case. 16. We find substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that only the private respondents i.e. respondent nos. 7 to 10 have been made accused in this case, although they could not have given effect to their nefarious intentions without the connivance of the officials of the office of the Tahasildar. 17. Despite this Court granting repeated opportunities to the respondents to make sincere efforts in that direction, the affidavits placed on record are not satisfactory and therefore, we are of the opinion that further investigation is necessary in the matter. In the light of the observations made hereinabove, we are also of the opinion that the further investigation ought to be carried out by an independent agency, as prayed by the petitioner. 18. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed. Accordingly, we direct that further investigation shall be carried 19th November 2025 Rajeshri Aher 906 WO 3331 OF 2019.DOC out in respect of subject FIR bearing No. 0566 of 2016, dated 15th October, 2016, registered at Police Station Indiapur, District–Pune. The investigation shall be transferred to the State C.I.D. The investigating officer is directed to transfer all the papers pertaining to the investigation and charge sheet to the State C.I.D. for further investigation. 19. It is directed that such further investigation should be carried out expeditiously and appropriate report be submitted before the competent Court. 20. In view of the petition being allowed, the interim order shall stand vacated and the concerned Court is directed to await the report to be filed in pursuance of the further investigation and then to take further steps in accordance with law. (MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) { 19th November 2025 Rajeshri Aher