wp308-11.sxw jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 308 OF 2011 Bhagwan Shankar Bhalerao .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Mr. N. R. Bubna for the petitioners Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the State Mr. Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel i/by Dnyaneshwar Deshmukh for Respondent No.4 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 10th March, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is a petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the “B” Summary Report filed by the Investigating Officer before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Murbad dated 8.1.2011. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents to appoint any competent officer to investigate the matter including the conduct of respondent no.3 and to take appropriate action against the officers and other persons found guilty in accordance with law. 1 wp308-11.sxw 3. Pursuant to the orders passed by the the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, an offence came to be registered against respondent no.4. After investigation, a report has been submitted before the learned Magistrate i.e. “B” Summary Report. The petitioner has received communication from the Magistrate, calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Court for deciding the “B” Summary Report. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 4. According to us, the petitioner has efficacious and alternate remedy available to appear before the Magistrate and contest the “B” Summary. In the light of the matter, therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition in respect of prayer clause (a) to the petition. 5. We have perused the petition in respect of the allegations made against the Police officer, in respect of the relief prayed at prayer clause (b) to the petition. All these questions are disputed questions of facts and particularly at this stage, according to us, it would be a premature relief which the petitioner has prayed for. In any event, the petitioner may submit representation to the competent authority in respect of his grievance regarding prayer clause (b) to the petition. 2 wp308-11.sxw 6. On the aforesaid terms, we dismiss the petition with no order as to costs. 7. It is needless to state that in the event the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of magistrate in respect of “B Summary which is pending before the Magistrate, the petitioner may avail remedies available to him in law. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. ) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) 3