1 wp-1031-2011 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1031 OF 2011 Paresh Bhanji Nanda ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and anr. ...Respondents Mr.Vishal Kanade i/b. Ashoka Law firm for petitioner. Dr.F.R.Shaikh, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. August 2, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Kanade, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only relief pressed in this petition is for transfer of investigation from Trombay Police Station to the State CID and the reliefs prayed for in prayer clauses (c) and (d) have been given up. The Assistant Commissioner of Police attached to the Trombay Division has filed an affidavit. It appears, from 2 wp-1031-2011 the very same incident that had taken place on 20/1/2011 late in the night two CRs from rival groups i.e. CR No.17 of 2011 and CR No.18 of 2011 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 143, 146, 147, 506(2) of IPC. The petitioner is accused in CR No.17 of 2011 whereas he is the complainant in CR No.18 of 2011. On completion of investigation in CR No.18 of 2011 the charge-sheet has been filed and the case has now been registered as CC No.883/PW/2011 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 45th Court, Kurla, Mumbai and the charge-sheet has been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 143, 146, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506(2) of IPC. The affidavit further points out that the petitioner himself does not have a good track record and he was involved in number of cases as set out in para 10. Mr.Kanade, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in the cases arising from CR Nos.163 of 2002, 332 of 2002 and 159 of 2003, the petitioner has been acquitted. However, in the case arising from CR No. 391 of 2009, he has filed an application for quashing and the same is pending, whereas in the other two cases arising from CR Nos.43 and 60 of 2010, the trial is pending. 2. We have perused the charge-sheet filed on completion of the investigation in CR No.18 of 2011 and we do not find any merit in the 3 wp-1031-2011 prayer that the investigation at this stage is required to be transferred to the State CID. Both the parties are known to each other and being octroi agents and there have been squabbles between them from time to time. Nothing stops the petitioner from examining any additional eye witnesses so as to support his case and with the leave of the Court. 3. Petition is rejected with liberty as is available in law. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)