1 180911 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY vgm CRIMINAL APELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETIITON NO. 1809 OF 2011 Shankar Bhoju Gunjal ...Petitioner V/s. Sr. Police Inspector Vishrantwadi Police Station & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Vikram Chavan for the Petitioner Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, A.P.P., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 12 Mr. Ashok Mundargi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Subhash Jadhav for Respondent No. 5 Mr .Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vishwajeet Sawant and Mr. Inderpal Singh i/by M/s. ALMT Legal for Respondent Nos. 6 to 11 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE: NOVEMBER 29, 2011 P.C.:- By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is prayed that direction be issued to the respondents to register F.I.R. in relation to complaint at Exhibit ‘D’ and to investigate the same expeditiously in accordance with law. The matter was being listed since 2 180911 22nd July, 2011. On the previous occasion, the Court insisted for proceeding with the hearing of the matter. But request for adjournment was made on the ground that the petitioner has engaged new advocate- on-record, and he would like to prepare the matter for arguments. That indulgence was shown. 2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, in spite of peremptory order passed on 25th November, 2011, the counsel for the petitioner requested the Court to adjourn the matter for some time on the ground that he would like to carry out amendment to the petition and to bring on record certain circumstances which, according to him, would be crucial for determining the point in issue. It was pointed out to him that, considering the limited relief claimed in this petition, the only question that needs to be examined is whether the written complaint (Exhibit ‘D’) discloses cognizable offence; and, for which reason, the local police station was obliged to register the same as F.I.R., and no other circumstance or question may be relevant. 3. Having noticed that the request for adjournment is not being acceded to by the Court, the counsel for the petitioner immediately consulted his client, the petitioner, who was present in Court, who, in 3 180911 turn, has instructed the advocate-on-record to request the Court to allow him to withdraw the petition. 4. In the circumstances, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally. R.G. KETKAR, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.