Supreme Court Orders Further Investigation in Maharashtra Minister's Assault Case

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated February 24, 2023, ruled on a crucial case involving an alleged assault on Anant Thanur Karmuse, a civil engineer, by the then Maharashtra Cabinet Minister Jitendra Awhad and his aides. The case raises significant concerns about police bias, misuse of power, and the right to a fair investigation. The Supreme Court, while refusing to transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), directed the Maharashtra State Police to conduct further investigation into the matter.

The ruling highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring a fair investigation even after chargesheets have been filed. The judgment also reiterates that constitutional courts can order further investigations in cases where lapses in the initial investigation are evident.

Background of the Case

The case stems from an incident on April 5, 2020, when the appellant, Anant Thanur Karmuse, shared a viral image of Jitendra Awhad on Facebook, criticizing his ridicule of the Prime Minister. Later that night, at around 11:50 PM, four policemen—two in uniform and two in civilian dress—allegedly took Karmuse to the minister’s bungalow, where he was mercilessly beaten and forced to delete the post.

Following the incident, Karmuse approached the police, only to find that an FIR (No. 119 of 2020) had been lodged against him under Section 292 IPC and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, based on a complaint by Hitesh Wani, an aide of the minister. The next day, he managed to file his own complaint, leading to FIR No. 120 of 2020 under Sections 365, 143, 144, 147, 149, 324, and 506(2) IPC at the Vartak Nagar Police Station, Thane. However, despite his specific allegations against Jitendra Awhad and his men, their names were omitted from the FIR.

Legal Proceedings

High Court Proceedings

Frustrated by the lack of action against the minister, Karmuse filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court seeking transfer of the case to the CBI. The High Court intervened, compelling the police to conduct a thorough investigation. However, the initial chargesheet failed to name Jitendra Awhad. It was only after two years of judicial monitoring that he was added as an accused.

The High Court eventually dismissed Karmuse’s petition, stating that since the chargesheet had been filed and charges framed, further investigation or re-investigation was not permissible.

Supreme Court Proceedings

Karmuse then approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the police investigation was biased and that the serious nature of the offenses—kidnapping and grievous hurt—had been diluted.

Arguments by the Appellant (Anant Thanur Karmuse)

The police investigation was conducted in a sham and casual manner to shield Jitendra Awhad, who was a sitting minister at the time.
Despite clear allegations in the FIR, Awhad and his men were not named in the initial investigation.
Only after the High Court’s intervention did the police reluctantly add Awhad as an accused—two years after the incident.
The chargesheet included only lesser offenses such as Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt), instead of more serious charges like Section 326 IPC (grievous hurt) and Section 367 IPC (kidnapping to cause grievous harm).
Vital evidence such as Call Detail Records (CDR) and CCTV footage had not been collected properly.
Under Article 21 of the Constitution, the appellant had a fundamental right to a fair investigation and trial.

Arguments by the Respondents (State of Maharashtra and Accused)

The chargesheet had been filed, and charges had already been framed; thus, further investigation was unnecessary.
Karmuse had not suffered grievous injuries, as per medical reports, and his claim of severe assault was exaggerated.
The police had already retrieved CCTV footage and mobile phone records, and no additional evidence was required.
Once a trial begins, re-investigation is not legally permissible.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling, stating:

“The victim has a fundamental right to a fair investigation and trial. Mere filing of a chargesheet and framing of charges cannot be an impediment in ordering further investigation.”

The Court relied on precedents, including Dharam Pal vs. State of Haryana (2016) 4 SCC 160 and Bharati Tamang vs. Union of India (2013) 15 SCC 578, which establish that constitutional courts can order further investigations if an initial probe is deemed insufficient.

Key rulings from the judgment:

The High Court erred in refusing further investigation despite clear lapses in the initial probe.
Serious allegations against a sitting minister warranted a more thorough investigation.
Delay in naming Awhad and the omission of key evidence suggested police bias.
Since the State of Maharashtra itself admitted lapses in the investigation, further investigation was necessary.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

Further investigation can be ordered even after chargesheets are filed: A chargesheet does not preclude courts from directing a fresh probe.
Victims have a right to fair investigation: If police bias is evident, courts can intervene.
Public officials are not above the law: The ruling underscores that influential individuals cannot escape justice through police manipulation.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling reinforces the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring that powerful individuals are held accountable. The judgment is a crucial precedent for cases where political influence compromises the integrity of an investigation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case reaffirms the fundamental principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. By ordering further investigation, the Court has taken a strong stance against police inaction and political influence in criminal investigations. This ruling serves as a reminder that the judiciary remains a guardian of justice, ensuring that no individual—regardless of power or position—is above the law.

Petitioner Name: Anant Thanur Karmuse.
Respondent Name: State of Maharashtra & Others.
Judgment By: Justice M. R. Shah, Justice C.T. Ravikumar.
Place Of Incident: Thane, Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 24-02-2023.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: anant-thanur-karmuse-vs-state-of-maharashtra-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-24-02-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by C.T. Ravikumar
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category