1 wp1917.10 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1917 OF 2010 Tabrez Alijan Shaikh. ....Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents Mr. Mukesh Pandey, advocate for petitioner. Ms. S.V.Gajare, APP for State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED:- OCTOBER 7, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. The first relief claimed in this Petition is to issue direction against the Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 to produce investigation papers and further to direct them to complete the investigation expeditiously. Insofar as this relief is concerned, the learned APP on instruction states that investigation in case of M.E.C.R.No.2 of 2010 as well as C.R.No.78 of 2010 is virtually completed and the Investigating Officer intends to file report before the concerned court in two weeks from now. That assurance is accepted. In view of this assurance, nothing survives for consideration in the first prayer clause. If the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the correctness of the report, it will be open to the Petitioner to approach the appropriate court and seek 2 wp1917.10 necessary direction, as may be advised. We express no opinion in that regard. All questions on merits will have to be answered by the said court at the appropriate stage. 2. The second relief claimed is to direct the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to disclose on affidavit as to what preventive action has been taken against the accused persons. Insofar as this relief is concerned, considering the fact that the Investigating Officer has not found any clinching evidence against the named accused, the question of taking any action against such persons does not arise. As and when the Investigating Officer comes across any material to indicate complicity of the named persons, needless to observe that he will have to take action against the said persons in accordance with law. 3. In the second relief, it is further prayed that the Petitioner be provided police protection. We fail to understand as to how the Petitioner apprehends threat to his life from his mother-in-law, who is named person in the two complaints made by him. We are not convinced with the plea taken by the Petitioner before us that he has any threat to his life. For want of sufficient material in this behalf, the relief will have to be rejected. 3 wp1917.10 4. Insofar as the third relief is concerned, it is prayed that the respondent No.4 be directed to disclose on affidavit about the material collected by the Investigating Officer. The same will have to be stated to be rejected. The Investigating Officer is expected to do so by way of his report and cannot be called upon to disclose all the material at this stage in the present proceedings. Hence, this Petition is devoid of merits. The same is disposed of on the above terms. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)