1 3182.11 SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3182 OF 2011 Tulsidas Nair & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Ms.Neeta Jain i/b Mr.Vikas Shivarkar for Petitioners. Mrs.A.S.Pai, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 6 & 11. Mr.Ditendra Mishra for Respondent No.7. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATED:- DECEMBER 9, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Broadly, three different reliefs are claimed in one Petition. The first is for quashing of F.I.R. bearing C.R. No.369/2011 registered with Vakola Police Station. The second relief is for issuing direction to transfer the investigation of C.R. No.370/201 and the third relief is for issuing direction to the respondents to provide police protection. 2 3182.11 3. Having gone through the documents on record, it is common ground that C.R. No.369/2011 as well as C.R. No.370/2011 are cross complaints in respect of the same incident. The investigation thereof is already in progress in connection with the complaint made by the petitioners, which was registered as C.R.No.370/2011. Three persons have already been arrested by the Investigating Officer. Since the investigation is in progress and the Investigating Officer having taken steps to arrest three persons in connection with the complaint made by the petitioners, it not possible to accept the grievance of the petitioners that the Investigating Officer has failed to discharge his obligation thus far. Besides, it is noticed from the record that the petitioners are already named as accused in 9 N.Cs. and 5 C.Rs. Even in the past, the petitioners had approached this Court by way of Criminal Petition No.3696/2010 making serious allegations against the Investigating Officer in C.R.No.341/2010 and other CRs. That plea came to be rejected for reasons recorded in order dated 10th August, 2011. Indeed, we are not basing our decision on account of the said finding of fact recorded against the petitioners. However, we are of the opinion that it is premature for the petitioners to make any grievance about investigation made in C.R. No.370/2011. As and when police report is filed and it appears that further investigation of the case is necessary, the petitioners 3 3182.11 would be free to persuade the concerned Court to issue such direction as may be required and permissible in law. However, if the petitioners are of the opinion that the entire investigation is fudged up by the Investigating Officer which would be known only after filing of the police report before the concerned Court, only then the petitioners can be justified in making allegations against the Investigating Officer in that behalf and upon substantiating the said allegations would be entitled for the relief of transfer of investigation to some other agency like Central Burreau of Investigation (CBI). 4. As aforesaid, in respect of the same incident, cross complaints have been filed in which allegations are made against the petitioners indicating their complicity in the commission of cognizable offence, being C.R. No. 369/2011. The question of quashing the said criminal case at F.I.R. stage itself, in our opinion, will be inappropriate. We have no hesitation in rejecting the petitioners’ prayer for quashing of F.I.R. No.369/2011 with liberty to the petitioners to resort to other remedies as may be permissible in law after filing of the appropriate police report in the concerned Court in connection with the said C.R. 4 3182.11 5. As it is a matter of cross complaint in respect of the same incident, although two C.Rs. have been registered by the Vakola Police Station, we hope and trust that the police officials would consider of filing one common police report after completion of investigation of the cross complaints, if only one of the two parties is right in their allegation against the other. 6. As regards the relief of providing police protection, it is not for this Court to issue directions to the respondents in that behalf. This Court, at best, would observe that the Deputy Commissioner of Police to whom representation has been made by the petitioners for the said relief must consider the representation on its own merits in accordance with law and if he is not competent to do so, may forward the representation to the appropriate authority to take final decision in the matter in accordance with law expeditiously. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, this Petition is disposed of. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.) 5 3182.11