abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2182 OF 2007 Gopal Govind Gharat & Anr. .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondent Ms.Clara Patil for the applicants. Mr.S.V. Gavand for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr.K.V. Saste, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 7TH FEBRUARY 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Mr.Gavand, colleague of Mr.Mundargi, advocate appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 3 mentions that Mr.Mundargi, who appears as counsel for the respondents, had come to the court in the morning and went home as he was not feeling well. He therefore prays for an adjournment. Learned counsel for the applicant objects to the adjournment. Though I am not impressed by the objection as the adjournment has been sought on the ground of illness of the counsel, since the advocate for the applicant insists that the matter be heard. I have - 2 - heard the advocates appearing for the parties. 2. By this application, the applicant has made two prayers. The applicant has firstly prayed that the investigation into the crime allegedly committed by the respondent nos.1 to 3 be directed to be carried out by the C.B.I. The applicant has secondly prayed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent nos.1 to 3 by the Sessions Court. 3. According to the applicants, the respondents have committed an offence punishable under sections 384, 389, 420, 464, 468, 471, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act. According to the applicants, they went to the police station for lodging an FIR but the police did not record it. The applicants therefore approached the Magistrate by filing a private complaint. The Magistrate did not take cognizance initially but directed the police to investigate the matter under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. by his order dated 5th December 2006. According to the investigating officer, custodial interrogation of the respondents is necessary for completing the investigation. Apprehending arrest, the respondents moved the Sessions Court for pre-arrest bail under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. By an order dated 9th February 2007, the - 3 - learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge has granted conditional anticipatory bail to the respondents. The applicants have approached this Court for cancellation of the said order of anticipatory bail. 4. In C.B.I. v. Rajesh Gandhi, reported in 1997 Cri.L.J. 63, the Supreme Court has held that no one can insist that an offence be investigated by a particular agency. Recently in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No.1685 of 2007 decided on 7th December 2007, the Supreme Court reiterated the said position and held that if the offence is not registered or is not being investigated properly, then the aggrieved person can approach the Magistrate under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate has ample powers to order further investigation. The Supreme Court has further held that it would not be appropriate to entertain a petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or a writ petition in respect of such matters and the High Court should ordinarily refuse to entertain such matters. In view of this, the request of the learned counsel for the applicants to order enquiry through C.B.I. is rejected. 5. As regards prayer for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court, I see no reason to issue such a direction. - 4 - 6. The learned Sessions Judge has held that the deeds of confirmation and agreement for development have been entered into. Consideration was paid. There was no prima facie evidence that the respondents have executed fabricated documents or committed an offence of forgery. The learned Sessions Judge has also held that there are private disputes between the applicants and the respondents and private complaints appear to have been filed because of the said disputes which are of civil nature. The learned Sessions Judge has also considered that the respondents are residents of Vashi, Navi Mumbai and have a permanent place of business. The learned Sessions Judge has therefore considered all relevant materials for grant of anticipatory bail. I see no reason to take a different view and revoke the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail. Application is therefore rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)