A.S. Gadkari, J
1) Petitioners i.e. the daughter and daughter-in-law of late Comrade Govindrao P. Pansare have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under ArticleÂ
226 of the Constitution of India, for a Writ  of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or direction in theÂ
nature of mandamus, directing the Respondent No.1 for appointing an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by theÂ
Additional Director General of Police and comprising of Officers of the ranks of Inspector General of Police and other Senior
Officers of impeccable credentials to conduct an investigation into the conspiracy and gruesome murder of Shri. Govind
Pansare, and to take all necessary consequential steps, actions pertaining thereto and provide them necessary facilities and support and to monitor the
investigation to be carried out by the SIT sought to be constituted through the present Petition till the investigation is reached to its logical conclusion.
2) Heard Mr. Grover, learned senior counsel for the Petitioners. Mr. Mundargi, learned senior counsel, Spl. P.P. for the State and Mr. Jha, learned
counsel for the accused Mr. Tawade. Perused entire record and the Notes of Arguments tendered across the bar by the Advocate for the Petitioners.
3) Record indicates that, Shri. Govind P. Pansare and his wife Smt. Uma G. Pansare were shot at by two unknown assailants riding on a motor-cycle,
on a public road near the house of Shri. Pansare, at about 9.15 a.m. on 16th February, 2015. Initially a crime bearing No.39 of 2015 under Sections
307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(25) of the Arms Act was registered with Rajarampuri Police Station, Kolhapur at the
instance of Shri. Mukund D. Kadam. Injured Mr. Govindrao Pansare succumbed to injuries on 20th February, 2015 while undergoing treatment at
Breach Candy Hospital, Mumbai and therefore Section 302 of the IPC is added to the crime.
3.1) Initially Rajarampuri Police Station, Kolhapur investigated the crime and thereafter the investigation was transferred to Special Investigation
Team (SIT), Kolhapur. That, under the supervision of Additional Director General of Police (CID), Maharashtra State, Pune, the investigation was
conducted by the said SIT. During the course of investigation names of 12 accused were revealed. The SIT arrested 10 accused persons and two
accused namely Vinay B. Pawar and Sarang D. Akolkar @ Kulkarni were reported to be absconding. That, initially a charge-sheet was filed against
the accused No.1, Sameer Gaikwad on 14 th December, 2015 and subsequently, 4 supplementary charge-sheets have been filed against the said 10
accused persons.
4) As the petitioners were of the view that, there was no major headway in the investigation of the said crime, they filed Interim Application No.2361
of 2022, for handing over the investigation of the present crime to a dedicated team of ATS, Maharashtra. It was the contention of the Petitioners that,
the SIT failed to trace out the absconding accused persons who were the actual shooters and there was no major headway in the said investigation.
This Court by a detailed Order dated 3 rd August, 2022 passed in Interim Application No.2361 of 2022, directed the Additional Director General of
Police, ATS to constitute a team of ATS Officers on similar manner, as constituted earlier and the said team to include some of the Officers of SIT
who have been investigating the said case and are in the know-how of the investigation carried out, till the date of passing of the said Order.
4.1) Paragraph Nos.39 and 41 of the said Order are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of brevity.
“39. No doubt, SIT has taken steps, however, we do not find any major headway being made in the said investigation. Despite the efforts of the Officers of SIT,
there is no breakthrough. This Court in the aforesaid petition has been monitoring the investigation since 2016. SIT has been regularly submitting reports with
respect to steps taken to nab the shooters. However, till date, they are absconding. The wait for the family of Comrade Pansare has been long, for almost seven
years. There is a legitimate expectation not only for the family of Comrade Pansare, but also the public at large, to see that the perpetrators of the ghastly crime,
are brought to book. And, this is the responsibility of the investigating machinery, which exists to preserve law and order. In the present case, SIT and ATS, both
are part of the Maharashtra Police. The transfer of investigation, even according to Mr. Nevagi, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Mundargi, Special
P.P., will not impede the ongoing trial. We are of the opinion, that transfer is necessiated to ATS to enable them to look at the investigation from their angle, as
enough and more than sufficient time was given to SIT by this Court. It is necessary that investigation is taken to its logical end, failing which, the perpetrators of
the crime would be emboldened.â€
“41. Accordingly, the Additional Director General of Police, ATS, to constitute a team of ATS Officers on similar lines, as constituted earlier, by SIT. The said
team to include some of the officers of SIT, who have been investigating the said case and are in the know-how of the investigation carried out, till date. The
constitution of the team shall be done at the earliest, and in any event, within one week from the date of uploading of this order.â€
5) Accordingly, the concerned Authority has constituted a team of officers of ATS which is being headed by Mr. Jayant Meena, IPS, Superintendent
of Police, ATS. After transfer of the said case to the ATS, it was renumbered as C.R. No.17 of 2022 on 19th August, 2022 under Sections 120(B),
302, 307 r/w 34 of the IPC and under Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and further investigation was commenced. The said team headed by the
S.P. of ATS has carried out investigation on all relevant and material aspects. Record further reveals that, on 28th June, 2024 Petitioners along with
their Advocate Mr. Kabir Pansare appeared at the office of the S.P., ATS, Pune and submitted a written representation. The contentions raised and
allegations made therein by the Petitioners have been duly verified and investigated by the ATS.
6) Mr. Grover, learned senior counsel for the Petitioners submitted that, the monitoring of investigation of the present crime, being conducted by ATS,
by this Court, is necessary for arrest of the said two absconding accused persons. He submitted that, from the perusal of various earlier Orders
passed by this Court, it can be inferred that, earlier there was little progress in the investigation and after the investigation was transferred to ATS, it
was properly conducted and the masterminds of the crime are identified. That, earlier the process of the investigation was tardy and only after
monitoring of investigation by this Court, extra-ordinary efforts were taken by the investigating agency. Therefore this is a case of extra-ordinary
nature and monitoring of investigation needs to be continued. He submitted that, there is a common link between the four murder cases namely of, Dr.
Narendra Dabholkar, Comrade Govind Pansare (present case), Professor M.M. Kalburgi and Ms. Gauri Lankesh and according to the Petitioners, all
the cases were coordinated and organized by same mastermind. That, the investigation in that aspect is yet to be carried out and therefore the
monitoring of investigation of the present crime is necessary. Mr. Grover, drew our attention to the observations made in paragraph Nos.75 and 108 of
the Judgment dated 10th May, 2024 passed in Sessions Case No.706 of 2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. The said case was
pertaining to the murder of Dr. Narendra Dabholkar. He submitted that, it is observed in paragraph No.108 that, the prosecution has failed to unmask
the mastermind in the said case. He submitted that, therefore also monitoring the investigation in the present case is necessary. He therefore prayed
that, the monitoring of the investigation of the present crime being conducted by the ATS may be continued by keeping the Petition pending.
7) Mr. Mundargi, learned senior counsel, Special P.P., on instructions from the S.P. of ATS informed this Court that, all the allegations made by the
Petitioners as per their statements and/or their representations given to the ATS have been in detailed investigated. That, apart from tracing out two
absconding accused, the investigation of the present crime has been completed from all the angles.
7.1) He tendered across the bar a report dated 14th November, 2024 duly signed by the S.P. of ATS, Pune in a sealed envelop. We have perused the
said report. Perusal of report indicates that, the concerned investigating agency has thoroughly investigated present crime from all the angles and as
per the said investigating report two accused namely Vinay B. Pawar and Sarang D. Akolkar @ Kulkarni are still absconding.
7.2) Mr. Mundargi, on instructions submitted that, the investigating agency would continue its efforts in tracing out and arresting the said two
absconding accused namely Vinay B. Pawar and Sarang D. Akolkar @ Kulkarni. He respectfully requested this Court, to pass necessary Orders in
the interest of justice.
8) Perusal of record and the confidential report submitted by the Investigating Officer, i.e. the S.P. ATS, indicates that, the ATS has investigated from
all the angles the allegations made by the Petitioners in their representation/statements and except the arrest of said two absconding accused, nothing
further remains to be investigated. The investigating agency is making necessary efforts to arrest the said absconding accused by carrying out further
investigation as contemplated under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.. It is thus clear that, the only aspect remained to be investigated is, tracing of the said
two absconding accused. According to us, only for the purpose of arrest of absconding accused, continuous monitoring of the further investigation by
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not necessary. After the accused persons are arrested, the investigating agency can report
it to the trial Court as per the provisions of Cr.P.C.
8.1) Record further reveals that, the trial of the present case has already commenced and as on 16th December, 2024, the
prosecution has examined 28 witnesses.
8.2) Mr. Mundargi, learned senior counsel, Special P.P., appearing for the State drew our attention to the fact that, the trial of the
present case could not be completed till date as the trial Court is listing the trial for hearing once in 15 days. That, the accused herein are being
represented by various Advocates and to accommodate them as per their convenience, on a particular date the trial Court is listing the Sessions Case
No.3 of 2016 pending on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur once in a fortnight and it is for that reason, till the date the trial of the present
crime could not be concluded.
9) At this stage, a useful reference can be made to few decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which have elucidated the principles regarding
monitoring of investigation by the Court.
9.1) In the case of Vineet Narain & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in (1998) 1 SCC 226 ,the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid
down the ratio that, the task of the monitoring by Court would end, the moment a charge-sheet is filed in respect of a particular investigation and that
the ordinary process of the law would then take over.
9.2) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case oSf ushila Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported inÂ
(2014) 1 SCC 269, in paragraph No.28 thereof, has held as under:-
“28. After analysing all these decisions, it appears to us that this Court has already in a catena of decisions held and pointed out that the monitoring of a case
is continued till the investigation continues but when the investigating agency, which is appointed by the court, completes the investigation, files a charge-sheet
and takes steps in the matter in accordance with the provisions of law before a competent court of law, it would not be proper for this Court to keep on
monitoring the trial which is continuing before a competent court. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that since the investigation has already been completed,
charge-sheet has been filed, trial has already commenced, it is not necessary for this Court to continue with the monitoring of the case in question.â€
9.3) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shahid Balwa Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2014) 2 SCC 687 , has observed that,
it has taken the consistent view that once charge-sheet is submitted in the proper Court, the process of court-monitoring investigation comes to an end
and it is for that Court to take cognizance of the same and deal with the matter.
10) After taking into consideration the ratio enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions and applying it to the facts of the
present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that, further monitoring of the investigation of the present crime is not necessary.
11) In view of the fact stated by the learned Spl.P.P. and recorded in paragraph No.8.2 above, we direct the learned Judge of the trial Court to
expedite the hearing of the Sessions Case No.3 of 2016 and to conduct it on daily basis.
12) Petition is accordingly disposed off in the aforesaid terms.
13) In view of disposal of Writ Petition, Criminal Application (APPW) No.43 of 2017, Interim Application Nos.725 of 2019, 2645
of 2022, 2647 of 2022 and 1810 of 2024 do not survive and are also disposed off.
