1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No. 436/2009 Vijay Madhukar Chaudhary vs. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Ministry for Home Mantralaya Mumbai and others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. CORAM : A.P.Lavande & R.C.Chavan, JJ DATE : 26.03.2010 Heard Mr. M.P. Kariya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.A. Mirza, leanred A.P.P. for respondents. 2. By this petition the petitioner seeks following reliefs; (1) Direct the respondent no.3 to register the FIR as per the fact disclosed by informant i.e. petitioner and further direct to register the offence as per the fact discloses by petitioner and also on the basis of injury. (2)To direct respondent no. 1 and 2 to transfer the investigation crime no. 48/2009 to the other agency other than respondent no.3 and also direct to carry out the investigation as per the law. 2` 2A) Direct the respondent no.2 i.e. Superintendent of Police, Wardha to re-investigate the matter in crime no.48/09 by the hands of any independent agency like local crime branch and further direct to carry out the investigation as per the law. 2B) Direct the respondent no.1 i.e. Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home, Mantralaya Mumbai as well as respondent no.2 Superintendent of Police to take legal action against the I.O. i.e. Pramod Tijare and punish him as per the law; 2C) To call the internal report from Superintendent of Police submitted by Dy. Superintendent of Police so also call the report from Special Commissioner at Nagpur about the inquiry report on the complaint of petitioner. 3. Reply filed on behalf of the respondents discloses that during the pendency of the petition the charge sheet has already been filed in the matter. As such at this stage we are not inclined to give any direction to Superintendent of Police, Wardha to re- investigate crime no. 48/2009. Similarly, at this stage, we are not inclined to grant relief in terms of prayer clause 2(B) i.e. action against I.O. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain the petition at this stage. The 3` petition stands dismissed. However, dismissal of this petition would not come in the way of the petitioner from seeking any other remedy as may be available to the petitioner in law. JUDGE JUDGE patle