1 wp 628-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 628 OF 2011 Mr.Jawahar Singh ...Petitioner vs. The Commissioner of Police, Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Mahesh Vaswani for the Petitioner. Mr.A.S. Gadkari, APP for the State. Mr.Kuldeep Patil for Respondent No.2. Mr.Satish Mishra i/b. Mr.A.M. Saraogi for Respondent No.3. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. JULY 4, 2011 P.C. :- 1 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2 Admittedly, CC No.2400041/SW/2010 came to be filed by respondent no.2 in the 24th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Borivali for the offences punishable under Sections 195-A, 167, 200, 203, 211, 2 wp 628-2011 387, 388, 389, 506 Part II, 511 read with 34 and 120B of IPC against three main accused and other unknown persons. The present petitioner is shown as accused no.3 in the said complaint. 3 The learned Metropolitan Magistrate was pleased to pass an order directing the investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on 23rd February, 2010 and pursuant the said order, MECR No.1/2010 came to be registered against six accused including the present petitioner (accused no.3). 4 Accused no.3 i.e. the present petitioner is an IPS Officer with the Maharashtra State Cadre and on account of an order passed by the competent authority, he is presently under suspension. He approached this Court vide Writ Petition No.1412/2010 along with others challenging the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, on 23rd February, 2010, directing the 3 wp 628-2011 investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 5 This Court (Single Bench) noted vide its order dated 4th October, 2010 that a revision application was already pending before the Sessions Court i.e. CRA No.19/2010 and therefore, directed the petitioner to approach the Sessions Court. Thereafter, CRA No.19/2010 came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 8th October, 2010. 6 It is under these circumstances this petition is in the second round. The learned Counsel for the petitioner at the outset gave up the challenge to the order dated 23rd February, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as well as the order passed by the Sessions Court dismissing CRA No.19/2010. He limited his challenge in this petition only to MECR No.1/2010 and prayed that the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4 wp 628-2011 7 We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and we have given our anxious considerations to the issues raised in this writ petition. On completion of inquiry as directed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer is required to submit his report to the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and a copy of which is required to be given to all the accused concerned. If any of them is aggrieved by the said order, has to agitate before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and at this stage to show our indulgence in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to quash the CR registered against the petitioner is uncalled for. The petitioner will have to wait for the investigation report to be submitted to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on completion of the investigation as directed and he will have his remedy before the very same court if he 5 wp 628-2011 is otherwise prejudiced by such a report. 8 Hence, the petition is rejected and we make it clear that the rights and contentions of the parties to be agitated before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate are left open. (U.D. SALVI, J) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J)