1 wp.605-2010 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 605 OF 2010 Suresh Jagannath Lokhande & Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. ----- Mr. S.G. Deshmukh i/b Mr. Abhijeet Kandarkar, for the Petitioner. Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the State. Mr. Girin N. Pandit, for Respondent no.9. ---- CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. AUGUST 08, 2011. P.C.: 1 We have heard Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2 In this Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs: (b) to quash and set aside the charge sheet filed by respondent 2 wp.605-2010 no.2 in Special Case no.1 of 2006 pending before the Special M.P.I.D. Court, Thane; (c) to direct respondent no.1 to appoint State CID or CBI to carry out through investigation in Regular Complaint no.34 of 2004 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalyan. (d) to direct respondent no.2 to carry out fresh investigation in the matter and also take appropriate action immediately, like seizing and confiscating all the properties of respondent nos. 3 to 10. 3 Admittedly, the petitioners have filed a private complaint registered as RCC no. 34 of 2004 in the court of J.M.F.C, Kalyan, and for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409, 418, 420 and 424 read with Section 34 of IPC. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed and on committal,the case has been registered as Special Case no.1 of 2006 before the Special Court under the M.P.I.D. Act. 4 The petitioners had approached this court in Criminal Writ Petition no. 1562 of 2009 with a prayer for transfer of the investigation of 3 wp.605-2010 the case to any appropriate and efficient agency, like the C.I.D. or C.B.I. This court noted that the chargesheet had already been filed on 12.1.2006 on completion of the investigation, and therefore, further orders were not necessary. Accordingly the Petition was dismissed with a clarification that if the petitioners had any grievance against filing of the charge sheet, they were at liberty to take appropriate remedy available in law. 5. This Petition has been filed in the second round and for the above stated prayers. As the validity of the M.P.I.D. Act has been upheld by the Supreme Court by reversing the decision of a Full Bench of this court, and therefore, the Special Court under the said Act has now started taking trials of the pending cases, nothing stops the petitioners from filing an application before the Special Court for further investigation, and also for further directions for seizing and confiscating the properties of respondent nos.3 to 10. Such applications are required to be decided as per law by the Special Court as and when filed. 6. Prayer clause (b) in this Petition, reproduced hereinabove, was also dealt with by this court in the order passed in Criminal Writ Petition no. 1562 of 2009, and we are not impressed by the petitioners’ prayers to 4 wp.605-2010 quash the charge sheet. 7. Hence, the Petition is rejected summarily with liberty to approach the Special Court under the M.P.I.D. Act. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)