1 1.wp.14-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.14 OF 2011 Mr.Rashid s/o. Babukhan and another. ..Petitioners. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents. .......... Mr.A.M. Saraogi, Advocate for the Petitioners. Ms.M.H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for the State. .......... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 2nd FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. 1. In all, three reliefs have been claimed in this Petition. When learned Counsel for the Petitioners was called upon to indicate as to which relief the Petitioners would like to pursue, as one Petition cannot be entertained for two separate cause of actions, learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that the Petitioners would pursue the relief which is in respect of FIR No.366/2010. In other words, relief in terms of prayer clause (c) is not pressed in this Petition. 2. Insofar as , the relief pertaining to FIR No.366/2010 namely prayer clauses (a) & (b) are concerned, in the first place the Petitioners pray for quashing of the said FIR and further relief is to issue direction PPD 2 1.wp.14-11 to initiate appropriate action against the concerned Officers responsible for their act of commission and omission which has been noticed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivli, Mumbai in its order dated 2nd June, 2010. 3. Insofar as the first part of the relief in connection with FIR No. 366/2010 is concerned, learned A.P.P. on instructions of Investigating Officer Mr.R.K. Sharma who is present in Court, submits that the investigation is already complete and the Investigating Officer is in the process of filing the police report / charge-sheet under Section 173(2) of the Code before the concerned Court very shortly. She submits that it will be done within three days from today. If charge-sheet were to be filed, the question of quashing of FIR does not arise. The Petitioners in that case may have to pursue their remedy before the concerned Court which will be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. Thus understood, nothing survives for consideration as regard to the first part of the relief. 4. Insofar as second part of relief concerning FIR No.366/2010 is concerned, since the issue has been noticed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in its order dated 2nd June, 2010 and directions have already been issued, we do not think it appropriate to 3 1.wp.14-11 entertain the present Writ Petition. Instead, in our opinion, the petitioner will have to pursue his remedy before the concerned Court which has passed the order dated 2nd June, 2010 for taking the directions issued by it to its logical end. If that happens, nothing would survive for consideration in the grievance of the petitioners made in this Petition justifying asking of further relief in connection with the said FIR. 5. Accordingly we dispose of this Petition with liberty to the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedy before the concerned Court, which needless to observe will be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)