1 3.wp3704-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3704 OF 2010 Piyush Ajaykumar Luharuwala s/o. Shri Ajay Kumar Luharuwala. ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra and 5 others. ..Respondents. .......... Mr.Sanjeev Punalekar, Advocate i/b. PRS Legal, for the Petitioner. Mr.S.M. Oak, Advocate i/b. Mr.Sagar Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.6. Mr.D.P. Adsule, A.P.P. for the State. Mr.Gorakh Karbhari Gotare, Dy.S.P., CID, Crime, present in-person. .......... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 21st JANUARY, 2011. P.C. 1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, it is prayed that notice issued by the Respondent Assistant Police Commissioner, Crime Branch, Nashik dated 18.5.2010 which is addressed to the Station Commander, Station Headquarter, Devlali Camp at Nashik be quashed and set aside. 2. This relief is claimed on the assertion that the Petitioner had participated in the tender process issued by the Station Commander. Infurtherance thereof, the Petitioner had deposited Rs.40 Lacs PPD 2 3.wp3704-10 from his own funds. The Petitioner was the successful bidder. Respondent No.6/Complainant has no casual connection with the said transaction entered into by the Petitioner in response to the tender notice issued by the Station Commander. In that view of the matter, the Police Officer exceeded his authority in informing the Station Commander by the impugned communication to refrain from releasing the amount of Rs.40 lacs to the Petitioner which was deposited by him. This argument appears to be attractive at the first blush. However, the investigation which is pending against the Petitioner is on the allegation made by Respondent No.6 that the Petitioner persuaded him to take over the contract to be executed by the Petitioner which was awarded by the Station Commander in respect of which the Petitioner had deposited sum of Rs.40 lacs with the Office of the Station Commander. In lieu thereof, respondent No.6 was made to part with sum of Rs.45 lacs and the Petitioner appropriated the said amount. Considering this allegation, it is not a case to take the view that the amount of Rs.40 lacs deposited by the Petitioner with the Station Commander in connection with the contract in question is unconnected with the complaint made by Respondent No.6. If it is so, the Investigating Officer was within his rights to inform the Station Commander to refrain from releasing the amount of Rs.40 lacs to the Petitioner. It is open to the Investigating 3 3.wp3704-10 Officer to exercise power under Section 102 of the Code, during the course of the investigation. 3. Learned A.P.P., on instructions of the Investigating Officer who is present in Court further informs us that the Petitioner is absconding and that the Investigating Officer, therefore, intends to initiate appropriate action against the Petitioner to secure his arrest in connection with the complaint registered by Respondent No.6. As a matter of fact, the Court ought not to exercise discretionary jurisdiction at the instance of the fugitive accused. Taking any view of the matter, the Petition deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)