1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 189 OF 2008 Himanshu Gangadhar Jagdhale & Anr. .... Petitioners. Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents. Mr. Rajiv Patil with Ms. Dipti Das i/by M/s. Duttmohan Dunmorrsett for the Petitioners. Ms. P. H. Kantharia, Addl.P.P. for Respondent No.1. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI and S. A. BOBDE, JJ. DATED : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P. C.: The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the case is being ordered to be reinvestigated by the Magistrate although the investigation has been completed and the police had submitted a report to the Magistrate that no case had been made out. The said report had been accepted by the Magistrate. In fact, we are not being shown any order of the Magistrate having accepted the report of the police. It appears that while the investigation was in progress the accused filed a writ petition before this court, being Writ Petition No. 968 of 1994, in which the following order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court: 2 “The learned APP states that on completion of investigation, Police had already filed `A” Summary report and the same has been accepted by the learned Magistrate by order dated 9th August, 1996. In view of the statement that `A' Summary has been accepted, the learned advocate for the petitioners crave leave to withdraw this petition. Leave granted. Needless to say that we have not expressed any opinion on the points and contentions raised in this petition. Petition is allowed to be withdrawn and is disposed of. Rule discharged.” 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that given to believe that `A' Summary had been filed before the Magistrate and that report had been accepted, he withdrew the petition. Therefore, the Magistrate could not have issued the notice by which he has reopened the `A' summary. 3. It appears that a statement was made before the Court incorrectly and wrongly. It was the fact that some report had been filed before the Magistrate, but the Magistrate had not applied his mind and had not passed any order on the said `A' Summary. Even in the report which was filed before the Magistrate, it was made clear that `A' Summary report is filed as a writ petition is pending and Police had also sought leave to reinvestigate after the writ petition was disposed of as there was a stay granted by this Court. 4. We are of the view that it was a mistake of the Public Prosecutor or the Officer instructing him that the statement was made in the Court that 3 `A' Summary had been accepted, which could not result into giving benefits to the petitioners since the Magistrate had not at all considered the report of the police. Therefore, the Magistrate was well within his right to issue the impugned notice. 5. For the above reasons, we do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (S. A. BOBDE, J.)