1 149311 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY vgm CRIMINAL APELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1493 OF 2011 Kartik Govardhan Shetty ...Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. C.K. Talekar for the Petitioner Mr. P.A. Pol, P.P., for the State CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 P.C.:- Leave to amend to give correct F.I.R. Number in the prayer clause granted. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is prayed that the F.I.R. registered at the instance of the Corporation at Charkop Police Station, Mumbai, bearing L.A.C. Case No. 705 of 2011 for offence punishable under Sections 52 and 43 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, be quashed. 2 149311 3. The only ground stated across the Bar is that, for the same structure, the Corporation had caused registration of F.I.R. bearing L.A.C. Case No. 209 of 2010 on 4th February, 2010. The allegation in the former F.I.R. was identical that the petitioner was responsible for filling up the plot standing in the name of the Collector and unauthorisedly erect structure of three sheds for running Service Centre. Even in the present F.I.R. registered on 7th April, 2011, the allegation is similar that the petitioner caused unauthorised mass filling by debris and earth and unauthorised construction of sheds with the help of M.S. sheet walls and A.C. sheet roofing. If it is so, it will be a case of prosecution of the petitioner for the same offence twice. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions of the Investigating Officer, Ashok M. Gaud, Assistant Police Inspector, Charkop, Kandivali, Mumbai, who is present in Court, however, states that the location and structures referred to in former F.I.R. L.A.C. Case No. 209 of 2010 is different than the location and structures referred to in the impugned F.I.R. registered as L.A.C. Case No. 705 of 2011. If it is so, the grievance made before us cannot be sustained at all, much less, made the basis for quashing of F.I.R. 3 149311 5. At the same time, we may place on record that the Investigating Officer, while submitting police report under Section 173 of the Code, after concluding the investigation of the respective cases, and in particular, in connection with F.I.R. L.A.C. Case No. 705 of 2011, shall specifically advert to this contention of the petitioner and refer to relevant material, on the basis of which, he has formed his opinion that the cause of action in both the F.I.Rs. is different for proceeding independently. However, in the event he accepts the stand taken by the petitioner that the subject-matter is identical in both the F.I.Rs. and the two F.I.Rs. are not arising out of different causes of action, he may submit appropriate report before the concerned Court, on the basis of which, the matter can be proceeded further before that court. Suffice it to observe that we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction at this stage. We, therefore, do not want to express any final opinion on this matter at this stage. 6. This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. 7. We, once again, clarify that the observations made in this order will not come in the way of the petitioner in the event 4 149311 the petitioner is required to pursue appropriate remedy before the concerned Court. The petitioner has not pressed other grounds raised in this petition, and would want to keep the same open to be pursued in appropriate proceedings as and when occasion arises. Ordered accordingly. P.D. KODE, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.