Dismissal Of Suit For Default Doesn't Bar Fresh Partition Suit As Cause Of Action Is Recurring; Second Rejection Of Plaint Application Barred By Res Judicata: Telangana High Court Married Daughter Entitled To Appointment As Fair Price Shop Dealer On Compassionate Grounds; Marital Status No Bar: Allahabad High Court Finding Of Title Cannot Be Recorded In Injunction Simpliciter Suit Absent Specific Pleadings & Issues: Andhra Pradesh High Court Conviction Not A Condition Precedent For Confiscation Of Vehicle Used In Forest Offence: Bombay High Court Advocate’s Professional Call To Client No Proof Of Conspiracy; Sterling Evidence Like CCTV Can Justify Quashing FIR: Gujarat High Court Revenue Entries Changed Without Notifying Affected Parties Are Void; High Court Can Upset Perverse Findings In Second Appeal: Himachal Pradesh HC Mandatory Injunction For Removing Sunshades Or Closing Windows Cannot Be Granted If No Encroachment Is Proved: Karnataka High Court Employer Cannot Resume Work Through Third Parties Until 30-Day Period For Contractor’s Post-Termination Compliance Expires: Madras High Court Circumstantial Chain Fails If Prosecution Doesn't Rule Out Accidental Death: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case Wife’s Status As Practicing Lawyer Or Professional Qualification No Absolute Bar To Grant Of Interim Maintenance: Orissa High Court Legally Wedded Wife And Second Wife Entitled To Equal Share In Family Pension If Second Wife Was Nominated & Cared For Deceased: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Suit Filed At The Fag End Of Limitation Reflects Lack Of Readiness And Willingness: Supreme Court Specific Performance Cannot Be Granted If Plaintiff Fails To Prove Financial Readiness At Relevant Time Of Transaction: Supreme Court MACT |Just Compensation For Deceased Professional Students Must Reflect Future Career Trajectory: Supreme Court Stationary Vehicle Parked At Night Without Warning Signs Poses Evident Hazard; SC Refuses To Reduce Compensation For CA Student’s Death Motor Accident Claims: 100% Loss Of Earning Capacity To Be Considered If Amputation Prevents Manual Worker From Pursuing Sole Avocation: Supreme Court Substantive Amendments Rendering Land Transfers 'Void' Are Prospective; Cannot Invalidate Decades-Old Sale Deeds: Supreme Court Registered Sale Deed Carries Formidable Presumption Of Genuineness; Minor Witness Discrepancies Cannot Invalidate Decades-Old Document: Supreme Court Mere Breach Of Sale Agreement Not Cheating Unless Dishonest Intent Existed From Inception: Telangana High Court Mining Lease Applications For First Schedule Minerals Deemed 'Disposed Of' Once Recommended & Approved Prior To 2015: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration Under NDPS Act Militates Against Article 21; Conditional Liberty Must Override Section 37 Embargo: Supreme Court Perpetual Minor Status Of Deity Does Not Exempt It From Limitation Laws; Condonation Requires 'Sufficient Cause': Orissa High Court State Cannot 'Approbate And Reprobate' Bravery: MP High Court Mandates Out-Of-Turn Promotion For Cop Who Rescued Truck From 200-Foot Gorge Drugs Controller Can Regulate Misleading Discount Boards In Medical Shops; Right To Business Not A Shield For Deception: Kerala High Court Courts Cannot Direct Parliament To Adopt Rotational Reservation For Assembly Seats; Section 9(1)(c) Delimitation Act Valid: Allahabad High Court Official To Pay Rs 20,000 Costs From Own Pocket: Andhra Pradesh High Court Holds Municipal Commissioner Liable For Failing To Take Court Orders To 'Logical End' IPC Sections 406 & 420 Cannot Co-exist On Same Set Of Facts; Substantial Compliance Enough For Section 156(3) CrPC Affidavit: Kerala High Court Family Courts Duty-Bound To Declare Marital Status In Mutual Consent Muslim Divorces Even If Wife Admits Divorce: Gujarat High Court Allottee’s Right To Interest For Delayed Possession Under Section 18 RERA Is Absolute; Not Fettered By Section 55 Contract Act: Bombay High Court Sentencing Not A Purely Retributive Exercise Divorced From Factual Matrix: Supreme Court Reduces Jail Term Of Man Who Forged Bail Documents

‘Vital Aspects Not Investigated’: Bombay HC Orders CBI Probe in Corporator’s Murder

09 September 2024 1:56 PM

By: sayum


Bombay High Court criticizes local police for failing to investigate all angles in cold-blooded murder of Abhishek Ghosalkar, directs transfer to CBI for impartial probe. The Bombay High Court has transferred the investigation of the brutal murder of former corporator Abhishek Ghosalkar to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The court, comprising Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Shyam C. Chandak, observed significant lapses in the Crime Branch’s inquiry, highlighting that several crucial angles remained unexplored. The ruling was made in response to a petition filed by Ghosalkar’s wife, Tejasvee Ghosalkar, seeking a fair and thorough investigation into the incident, which was broadcast live on Facebook.

On February 8, 2024, Abhishek Ghosalkar, a former Shiv Sena corporator, was shot dead in a shocking live-streamed attack in the office of Mauris Noronha, the prime suspect in the case. Noronha, after firing 7 to 8 bullets at Ghosalkar, shot himself using the same weapon. The investigation was initially handled by the M.H.B. Colony Police Station and later transferred to Crime Branch, Unit-XI. However, Tejasvee Ghosalkar filed a petition citing the lack of depth in the investigation, suspecting a larger conspiracy involving Mauris's associates, Amrendrakumar Mishra, and Mehul Parekh.

Failure to Explore All Angles: The court found several gaps in the Crime Branch's investigation, especially regarding the involvement of others besides Mauris. The petitioner pointed to multiple suspicious behaviors and inconsistencies, including the movements of Mehul Parekh and Amrendrakumar Mishra before and after the incident. Despite the petitioner providing CCTV footage and other evidence, the police had failed to investigate these angles adequately.

"Some Vital Aspects Not Investigated": The bench noted that while the Crime Branch claimed to have investigated all possible leads, the ground reality suggested otherwise. "Some vital aspects which ought to have been investigated have not been investigated," the court remarked, adding that this raised serious concerns about the thoroughness of the investigation.

Suspicious Conduct of Key Witnesses: The statements of Amrendrakumar Mishra and Mehul Parekh, both present during the incident, were found to be contradictory. Mishra’s behavior, in particular, raised alarms. He reportedly fled the scene despite hearing gunshots and witnessing the chaos outside Mauris's office. The court noted that Mishra's actions were highly suspicious and not adequately scrutinized by the investigators. Similarly, Parekh’s evasive actions and failure to respond immediately to the gunshots further added to the court’s concerns.

Justice Revati Mohite Dere remarked, “If all angles of a case are not examined, it would lead to a travesty of justice. Therefore, even if there are innocent lapses in the investigation, they cannot be allowed to continue, as it would result in the denial of a fair and impartial investigation, leading to a miscarriage of justice.”

The court further emphasized the need for an independent and impartial investigation: "In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate to transfer the investigation to the CBI, so as to retain public confidence and ensure justice is done."

Exceptional Circumstances Warrant CBI Probe: The court referred to established legal precedents on the transfer of investigations to CBI, underscoring that such transfers are to be made in rare and exceptional circumstances. In this case, the court noted that the serious lapses in the investigation and the public nature of the crime—broadcast live on social media—necessitated the involvement of an independent investigative body.

Criticism of Local Police’s Handling: While the court clarified that its decision was not a reflection on the efficiency of the Crime Branch, it strongly suggested that the local police had failed to consider the broader conspiracy theories suggested by the petitioner. The court stressed that the quality of investigation is paramount in ensuring justice, particularly in high-profile cases such as this.

The Bombay High Court’s order to transfer the investigation to the CBI sends a clear message about the importance of impartial and thorough investigations in cases involving public figures and serious criminal allegations. By highlighting the gaps in the initial inquiry, the court has underscored the judiciary's role in safeguarding the integrity of the investigative process. The case will now be overseen by a CBI officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, and the investigation will focus on all potential angles, including the roles of other individuals who may have conspired in the murder. This decision is expected to restore public confidence in the judicial system and ensure that justice is served in this shocking case.

Date of Decision: September 6, 2024

Tejasvee Abhishek Ghosalkar vs. The State of Maharashtra & Others

Latest Legal News