Dixit 1 WP-2825-2210-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2825 OF 2011 Sharad Narayan Badgujar ... Petitioner V/s. The Sr. Inspector of Police, Kapurbavadi Police Station, Thane & Ors. ... Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2210 OF 2011 Rashmi Prasad Mhatre ... Petitioner V/s. The Sr. Inspector of Police, Dindoshi Police Station, Malad, Mumbai & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Raju Yamgar with Mr. Rajesh Kakad for the Petitioners. Mrs. A.S. Pai, A.P.P., for the Respondent-State. API C.R. Chavan, attached to Kapurbavadi Police Station, Thane, is present in person. P.I. Borate, attached to Economic Offences Wing, is present in person. CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 15 TH NOVEMBER, 2011. P.C. : 1. This is second Petition, being Criminal Writ Petition No.2825 of 2011, filed by the same Petitioner. The previous Writ Petition No.2084 of 2011, when it was Dixit 2 WP-2825-2210-11 taken up for admission on 25th August, 2011, statement was made by the learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State that F.I.R. has already been registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Statement was also made that during the investigation, if it is revealed that some other offences are attracted including Section 120-B of the IPC, even that will be taken into account by the Investigating Officer before filing of the Police Report before the concerned Court. The fact that such F.I.R. has been registered at Dindoshi Police Station is not disputed. Indeed, that F.IR. has been registered at the instance of Smt. Rashmi Prasad Mhatre, the Petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.2210 of 2011. It is registered at Dindoshi Police Station as the Company is situated within the jurisdiction of Dindoshi Police Station. It is also noticed that the Petitioner has been named as one of the witnesses in the said criminal case. 2. The Investigating Officer has already recorded statement of the Petitioner which is part of the record. What remains to be done is only a formal registration of the F.I.R. at Kapurbavadi Police Station, Thane, where the Petitioner had submitted his written complaint. However, as the substance of the said written complaint is same as the complaint made by Smt. Mhatre coupled with the fact that the complaint filed by Smt. Mhatre has been registered at Dindoshi Police Station within whose jurisdiction the registered office of the Company is situated and, more so, now that the said offence is being investigated by the Economic Dixit 3 WP-2825-2210-11 Offences Wing in respect of all transactions and not limited to the complaint of the said Mhatre, the question of issuing direction to register another F.I.R. at Kapurbavadi Police Station, Thane, does not arise. It is not the case of the Petitioner that his statement has not been recorded by the Investigating Officer in connection with F.I.R. registered at Dindoshi Police Station or that his transaction is left out from the said investigation. As aforesaid, even the statement of Petitioner has already been recorded in the course of the said investigation. 3. As aforesaid, the substance of the allegations in the complaint made by Smt. Mhatre at Dindoshi Police Station and that by the Petitioner at Kapurbavadi Police Station at Thane is identical, which aspect is already being investigated by the Economic Offences Wing. For that reason, it is unnecessary to have multiple F.I.Rs of all the witnesses who may be residing at different places across the State. That may create more confusion and retard the investigation or for that matter the trial of the case itself. 4. As regards the grievance of the Petitioner that all offences, such as under M.P.I.D. Act, have not been mentioned in the F.I.R., even that aspect is already noted in our order dated 25th August, 2011. Statement was made before us that, during the investigation, if it is revealed that some other offence is attracted, necessary steps will be taken to take the investigation and the trial against the Dixit 4 WP-2825-2210-11 concerned accused for such offences in accordance with law. The Respondents have not deviated from the said assurance given to the Court, which has been accepted by the Court. The learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State, on instructions, has pointed out that even the possibility of invoking offence under the provisions of M.P.I.D. Act is being explored and necessary decision in that behalf will be taken by the appropriate authority very shortly before filing supplementary Charge-Sheet consequent to the further investigation undertaken by the Economic Offences Wing. In our opinion, therefore, the relief claimed in this Petition is ill advised. 5. One of the grievance made by the Petitioner to counter the above position, is that, there are more than one offences registered against the Company and its Directors at different Police Stations across the State. If it is so, it is open to the Investigating Officer and the appropriate authority to consider of amalgamating all the F.I.Rs to be proceeded as one case and file one Charge-Sheet and have one common trial, if the same is possible and permissible in law. We are not inclined to issue any directions in that behalf in absence of proper material placed before us. That too, the appropriate authority itself has to apply its mind to that aspect of the matter in the first place. No material is placed before us that the appropriate authority has already rejected that proposition. Dixit 5 WP-2825-2210-11 6. Accordingly, Writ Petition No.2825 of 2011 is disposed of on the above terms. 7. In view of the observations made here-in-above, the Counsel for the Petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.2210 of 2011 submits that this Petition be disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to approach this Court in the event it is noticed that the newly appointed Investigating Agency, i.e. Economic Offences Wing, is not investigating the matter properly or has failed to file Charge-Sheet in respect of relevant offences, which are disclosed on the basis of the material collected during the investigation. 8. Accordingly, Criminal Writ Petition No.2210 of 2011 is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed. [R.G. KETKAR, J.] [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]