1 wp366810 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3668 OF 2010 Inayat Mukadam ...Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. R.D. Suryawanshi for the Petitioner Mr. P.A. Pol, P.P., for the State. CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE: 28TH JANUARY, 2011 P.C.:- The "only" grievance made before us in this petition is that the newly-appointed investigating agency has failed to record statements of important witnesses, and that may result in giving benefit to the accused by presenting the prosecution case. When called upon to identify as to statements of which witnesses have not been recorded, the learned counsel for the petitioner informs that statement of one Yatish Rajaram Kadwekar, resident of Khend, Taluka Chiplun, District Ratnagiri, has not been recorded. 2 wp366810 2. Insofar as this witness is concerned, the learned P.P., on instructions, states that from the material available on record and already collected by the Investigating Officer, the presence of Yatish Rajaram Kadwekar has not been mentioned anywhere. Even so, since the petitioner asserts that, even Yatish Rajaram Kadwekar was present on the scene of offence at the time of attack, the Investigating Officer has no inhibition in recording his statement. 3. In view of the fair stand taken by the P.P., we have no reason to doubt that, if the statement of Yatish Rajaram Kadwekar discloses any crucial clue or relevant evidence, the same will be taken forward by the Investigating Officer to rule out all possibilities, including the ones suggested by the petitioner. Besides the above, no other grievance has been made before us regarding the investigation done by the newly-appointed investigating agency. 4. The only other argument, which needs to be referred to in this order, is that, according to the petitioner, although there is incriminatory material disclosing involvement of respondent No. 4 in the commission of the crime, the Investigating Officer has not proceeded against respondent No. 4 in accordance with law, amongst others, by naming him as one of the accused. This grievance, however, is on the 3 wp366810 assumption that incriminatory material has already come on record during the investigation done till this stage. If such is the position, we have no manner of doubt that the Investigating Officer would proceed against all concerned against whom material has come on record to indicate their complicity in the commission of the crime. 5. The investigation is being done by officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police. We do not think it appropriate to make any observation about the correctness of the plea taken by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. In the event the charge sheet is filed, and the material presented along with the charge sheet discloses involvement of other persons than the named accused, it will always be open to the petitioner, being the complainant, to ask for suitable directions from the concerned Court, which application, if filed, will have to be decided on its own merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. 6. As no other point has been raised, nothing survives for consideration in the present petition. It is disposed of on the above terms. A.R. JOSHI, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.