1 1.wp.3613-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3613 OF 2010 Mr.Vikas s/o. Rajkumar Ganeriwal, and others. ..Petitioners. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents. .......... Mr.A.M. Saraogi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs.M.H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for the State. Mr.A.H.H. Ponda, Advocate for the Respondent. .......... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 15th FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The relief claimed in this Petition is to transfer four different criminal cases to one investigating agency. The four different cases between the parties are [1] Complaint No. 32/SW/2009 filed before the 48 th Metropolitan Magistrate Court PPD 2 1.wp.3613-10 at Andheri, [2] MECR No.6 of 2009 which was later on registered as C.C. No.1459 of 2010 before the 26th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Andheri, [3] C.R. No.387 of 2010 registered with Andheri police station, and [4] C.R. No.58 of 2011 registered with Oshiwara Police Station and investigation whereof is handled by the Crime Branch. 3. Out of the above mentioned four cases, in the first case the Petitioners made complaint about breach of trust and cheating in connection with transaction effected with the private Respondent regarding friendly loan. The second case may appear to be the fall out of the allegations made by the Petitioners against the private Respondents. The second case is filed by the private Respondents alleging that the cheque book relied upon by the Petitioners as having been issued by the private Respondents was taken away by the Petitioners without the knowledge of the private Respondents from their residence. However, what is significant to note is that the first case has been investigated and police report has been filed before the concerned Court on 12.1.2009. Even the second case registered by the private Respondent came to be investigated 3 1.wp.3613-10 by the local police and chargesheet has been filed against the named accused before the concerned Court on 23.6.2010. The fact remains that the investigation in both these cases is completed by the concerned investigating agency and reports have been filed before the concerned Court. The question of transferring investigation of these cases to one agency which is the relief claimed in this Petition filed on 7.12.2010, therefore, cannot be countenanced. 4. Counsel for the Petitioners was at pains to point out that in the first criminal case initiated at the instance of the P:etitioners the investigating officer has absolved the private Respondents of the allegations contained therein. Whereas in the second case filed by the private Respondents the overlapping issue regarding the factum of cheque books of the private Respondents having been stolen by the Petitioners, the opinion of the Investigating Officer is not consistent with the opinion of the Investigating Officer in the first case. That is a matter for trial in the concerned case. In our opinion, at this belated stage it is not open for us to entertain the relief claimed in this Petition of transferring the investigation of all 4 1.wp.3613-10 the four cases on one investigating agency, especially when the investigation in the first three cases have been already concluded and the reports have been filed in the concerned Courts. 5. Insofar as the third case is concerned, the same is registered at the instance of Petitioner No.1 complaining of criminal trespass initially against unknown persons and then against the private Respondents. This complaint is registered on 3rd August, 2010. The same has been duly investigated by the local Police who in turn have submitted A-Summary report before the Andheri Court on 17.12.2010. Nothing is brought to our notice that the said investigation was faulty or was biased against the Petitioners. 6. Considering the above, suffice it to observe that the relief as claimed in the Petition is devoid of merits. It is not possible to accede to the request, which in turn would require this Court to order re-investigation of the three earlier cases which have already been investigated by the concerned Police Officers and report submitted before the concerned Courts. The attempt of the petitioners appear to confuse the issue so that the adverse opinion 5 1.wp.3613-10 reported by the Investigating Officer in the earlier cases can be reopened by this process. There is no tangible ground on the basis of which such indulgence can be shown. Accordingly, this Petition fails and the same is dismissed. 7. Needless to observe that the dismissal of this Petition would necessarily mean that the fourth case registered by petitioner No.2 being C.R. No.58 of 2011 investigation thereof would proceed in accordance with law. This order is not an expression of opinion either way on the merits of the allegations in any of the complaints. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)