1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 347 OF 2009 Shri Manik Vanaji Gawali ...Petitioner VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Shri Mukul Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioner Smt. R.R.Mane, A.P.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Shri Girish Rane, advocate for respondent no.3 Shri P.M.Shah, Senior advocate instructed by Shri S.P.Shah, advocate for respondent no.4 Shri A.S.Sawant, advocate for respondent nos. 15 to 22 and 24 ..... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 21 st JULY, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Shri Mukul Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the 2 Supreme Court judgment reported in 2008-SCC-2-409 [Sakiri Vasu vs State of U.P. And Ors.] and the Bombay High Court judgment reported in 2008 (4) Mah L R 279 [Anandibai P.B.Nimbalkar vs. The Inspector], submitted that the petitioner is not at all satisfied with the report filed by the police in R.C.C. No. 788 of 2008. According to the counsel, on 12.1.2009 the Magistrate passed the order under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and police filed report on 16.2.2009. The Magistrate thereafter passed the order on 4.3.2009, which is at Exh.’D’, as follows : - “ Perused report filed by the police. By perusing the documents, it is found that detailed investigation and enquiry is to be required. Hence send this matter to the concerned police station for reinvestigation and sufficient time is granted to them for filing report, returnable on or before 4.5.2009. “ 2 Criminal Writ Petition No. 279 of 2009 came to be filed by Sanjay s/o Kashinath Agrawal and another before this court challenging the said order passed by the Magistrate dated 4.3.2009 and learned Single Judge of this court on 3.7.2009 admitted the petition and passed following order :- “ Heard Shri V.J.Dixit, Senior Counsel holding for Shri Amol S.Sawant, advocate for petitioners, Shri Dilip Bankar Patil, A.P.P. For Respondent No.1 and Shri Mukul Kulkarni, 3 advocate for Respondent NO.2. Rule. Learned Counsel for respective Respondents waive notice. Interim relief in terms of prayer clause (D). However, it is made clear that so far as allegations against Bank are concerned, if Cooperation Department deems it appropriate, the Department is at liberty to investigate the matter and take appropriate action, if found necessary. “ 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Kulkarni submitted that in spite of there being good evidence and material against the respondents/accused, the police did not investigate the offence correctly and filed a report which was not in accordance with the record. Therefore, this writ petition was filed seeking directions to the C.I.D. in Economic Wing of the State police for investigation of offences allegedly committed by the respondents, which are narrated in R.C.C. No. 788 of 2008. In prayer clause ‘B’ the petitioner prayed that in the alternate directions should be issued to any other Investigating Agency under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4 Learned Senior counsel Shri P.M.Shah appearing for respondent no. 4 submitted that the petition is filed obviously to 4 malign the image of respondent no.4 in the petition, who happenes to be a sitting M.L.A. and would be a proposed candidate in the ensuing assembly elections. It was further submitted by the learned Senior counsel that the order of the Magistrate which was passed is subjudice in Criminal Writ Petition No. 279 of 2009. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for this court in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India to direct another wing of the Investigating Agency i.e. C.I.D. to investigate the offence, pending hearing and final disposal of the writ petition. 5 We have perused the judgments cited before us. We find that the learned Single Judge had already admitted the writ petition and passed interim order in respect of the order passed by the Magistrate. Prima facie, we find from the order passed by the Magistrate on 4.3.2009 that the learned Magistrate was not satisfied with the report and, therefore, reinvestigation was directed in respect of the allegations made against the accused in R.C.S. No. 788 of 2008. Till the issue is resolved or the writ petition is heard, disposed of or any other orders are passed in the writ petition, as a matter of principle and propriety, we do not find appropriate to issue directions to the C.I.D., Economic Wing of the State to start fresh investigation in respect of the allegations 5 made against the petitioner. It would not be appropriate to have two agencies performing the same job at one and the same time. Even otherwise the petitioner does have alternate remedies. 6 In the light of the fact that issue is subjudice before this court in writ petition, we may not even look into the allegations made by the petitioner against the proposed accused persons of alleged fraud, malpractices, etc. Therefore, without entering into merits and de-merits of the allegations made inter se, we decline to entertain the petition in exercise of our extraordinary writ jurisdiction at this stage. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) dbm/crwp347.09