1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITION NO.1173 OF 2011 Ms.Laxmi Vijay Bidri .. Petitioner V/s The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.A.M.Saraogi for the petitioner. Mrs.A.S.Pai, APP for the State. Mr.Y.H.Sable, PSI, Panvel City Police Station present. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE: 15th November, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Essentially two reliefs have been claimed in this petition. The first is to direct the Commissioner of Police to conduct inquiry against the officers who had visited the residence of the petitioner on 26.03.2011 and arrested & interrogated her by detaining her in police station without the presence of any female police officer and that too in a drunken condition. As regards this relief is concerned, the learned APP, on instructions states that the Commissioner of Police has already instituted inquiry into the said complaint through the 2 Assistant Commissioner of Police of the concerned area. It will be open to the petitioner to provide necessary input to the inquiry officer in connection with the said inquiry, if so advised. That inquiry however shall be completed expeditiously. In the event the petitioner is not satisfied with the outcome of the said inquiry, she will be free to pursue the matter further before appropriate forum, which grievance will have to be considered in accordance with law. 2. The second relief claimed in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.145 of 2011 registered for the offence under section 406 IPC, with the Panvel City Police Station, at the instance of Respondent No.2. The FIR refers to the alleged involvement of the petitioner in taking away the articles /properties and cash amount from the premises whose control was given to the petitioner. It is not possible to quash the FIR on the assumption that it was improbable that the incident could happen. Further, now the investigation is also complete and the chargesheet has been filed, as stated by the learned APP. The Petitioner would be free to pursue the remedy of discharge before the concerned Court, if so advised. That will have to be decided on its own merits in 3 accordance with law. All the questions in that behalf are kept open. 3. In view of the above, petition is disposed of. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)