1 wp2069.09 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2069 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.217 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2069 OF 2009 Keshav Ganpatrao Bhuktare & Anr. ....Petitioners. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents Mr. Bhavesh Parmar, advocate for petitioners. Mr. K.V.Saste, APP for State. Mr. A.S.Gadkari, advocate for Respondent nos. 3 and 4. Mr. S.S.Deshmukh, advocate for Respondent No.5. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED:- OCTOBER 8, 2010. P.C. 1. In terms of order dated 16th September, 2010, original case diary was produced before us. On perusing the same, it is not possible to countenance the grievance of the Petitioners that no steps at all were taken by the Investigating Officer after registration of crime on 10th July, 2009. The case diary reveals that virtually on day to day basis the Investigating Officer took steps as soon as the case was made over to him on 11th July, 2009. Besides, it is noticed that on 2 wp2069.09 completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed on 9th December, 2009. Later on, after further investigation, supplementary chargesheet came to be filed on 16th June, 2010. In the circumstances, in our opinion, nothing survives for consideration in so far as prayer clauses (b) and (c). We say so because, it is not the grievance of the Petitioners before us that the chargesheet and the supplementary chargesheet as filed are replete with deficiency. Unless that grievance were to be made before us, the question of requiring the Investigating Officer to investigate further into the case does not arise. 2. However, in so far as prayer clause (d) is concerned, we express no opinion on the said matter at this stage. After the trial is concluded and at the end of the trial if it is found that the investigation done by the Investigating Officer was not proper, it will be open to the Petitioners to pursue such other remedy, as may be permissible in law. We make it clear that that although composite relief is claimed by way of prayer clause (d), which includes direction against the Respondent No.3 Union of India, insofar as that relief is concerned, that cannot be granted because the criminal case registered on 10th July, 2009, which is the subject matter of C.R. No.53 of 2009 registered at Bhadrakali Police Station has no causal connection with the C.R. Registered by C.B.I. No issue has been raised with regard to the said C.B.I. case in the present Petition. 3 wp2069.09 3. Petition is disposed of on the above terms. 4. In view of the order passed in the Writ Petition, nothing survives for consideration in the Criminal Application. The same is also disposed of accordingly. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)