1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 366 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 384 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 415 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2171 OF 2008 Girish P Shah ..Petitioner -versus Sr. Inspector of Police and ors .. Respondents Mr. Diwakar Dwivedi, for the Petitioner. Mr. J.S. Kini, i/b Suresh Dubey, for applicant in Application No.366 of 2008 Mr. M.A. Desai i/b S. S. Vichare, in Application No.4l5 of 2008 Smt. U.V. Kejariwal, APP for the state. CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI, & R. G. KETKAR JJ DATED: 24th April, 2009 P.C. 1. The petitioner has prayed for direction to the second respondent and Senior Inspector of Police, Samta Nagar Police Station, Kandivali 2 (East), Mumbai to remove the lock which was put on flat No.106, lst floor, B Wing Akurli Golden Place CHS Ltd, Kandivali (E), Mumbai 400 101, and for further direction to hand over the possession of the said flat to him. 2. On 27th January, 2009, the Division Bench of this Court (Bilal Nazki & Anoop V Mohta, JJ), recorded the grievance of the petitioner and directed the Principal Judge of the Civil Civil and Sessions Court, Mumbai to appoint Additional Sessions Judge to hold enquiry and to submit his report within a period of four weeks to this Court. 3. Accordingly the enquiry has been conducted and enquiry report dated 7.3.2009 has been submitted to this Court. We have perused the report. After recording the relevant statements, the learned Sessions Judge has concluded that during the enquiry it has transpired that the petitioner was never in possession of disputed flat No.l06 at any point of time. He has further concluded that there is no material to hold that the possession of the concerned flat was forcibly 3 taken by police and handed over to somebody else while conducting investigation u/s l56 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. On the last occasion a copy of this report was handed over to the petitioner's counsel as directed by us. A copy was also handed over to learned APP. In view of this report, it is not possible for us to entertain this petition. 5. The learned APP has brought to our notice the Roznama of Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.25l of 2008, filed by petitioner in the Sessions Court, Borivali Division at Dindoshi, Mumbai. The roznama indicates that the applicant has remained absent throughout and on 8.l0.2008 the learned Judge has passed following order. P.C. Liberty to move after notice to otherside. Applnt to remain present on the date for which notice would be given. Removed from the board. Sd/- Addl. Sessions Judge, Borivali Division,Dindoshi-Goregaon. 6. We fail to understand as to how the learned 4 Sessions Judge could have removed the application from the board. We direct the learned Sessions Judge to take the application on board immediately and hear it and pass appropriate orders independently and in accordance with law. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is present in the Court. He has noted the order passed by us. He shall ensure that he or any other counsel appointed by his client, would appear in the Sessions Court and get the application disposed of. 7. As already stated by us in view of the report submitted by the learned Sessions Judge, the petition cannot be entertained and is dismissed. It shall, however, be open to the petitioner to challenge the report if he so desires in accordance with law before appropriate forum. We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. We also make it clear that intervention applications filed by the other members were never granted. 8. We notice that earlier Division Bench of this Court, has directed the police to complete 5 investigation and submit its report to the concerned Additional Magistrate within a period of four weeks. The Bench has directed the petitioner to make himself available for investigation till the investigation is completed. The learned APP tells us that the investigation could not be completed because the petitioner is not co- operating with the police. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will co- operate with the investigation. 9. In view of the dismissal of the petition, the applications filed in this petition do not survive and are disposed of. (SMT RANJANA DESAI,J) (R.G. KETKAR, J)