1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPW) NO. 92 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 366 OF 2011 ZAKIR KHAN JAHANGIRKHAN POSWAL VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ADDL. CHIEF SECY., HOME DEPTT., MUMBAI +4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Firdos Mirza, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. T. A. Mirza, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondents Mr. R. D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for intervenor. CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND P.B.VARALE, JJ. DATE : 14th NOVEMBER, 2011. By this application, the applicant seeks to intervene in the petition as an intervenor. We have heard Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar, the learned counsel for the applicant/intervenor, Mr. Firdos Mirza, the learned counsel for the original petitioner and Mr. T.A. Mirza, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent nos.1 to 5 and for the reasons disclosed in the application, the application is allowed. The applicant is permitted to intervene in the petition. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 366 OF 2011. Mr. Firdos Mirza, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that in respect of the report dated 18.03.2009, the respondents have registered an 2 offence i.e. Crime No. 279 of 2011 and in that light of the matter prayer clause (a) does not survive for consideration. In respect of prayer clause (b), (c) and B(2), the learned counsel for the petitioner states on instructions that the petitioner does not press for the aforesaid reliefs. This writ petition, therefore, accordingly stands dismissed in respect of prayer clause (b), (c) and B(2) to the petition. In respect of prayer clause B(1) to the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the light of registration of the offence and the investigation, which is being carried out, the petitioner also does not press for relief at prayer clause B(1) to the petition. In respect of the relief at prayer clause (a) for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to register offence on the basis of report dated 06.02.2009, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition as the petitioner intends to file a Public Interest Litigation. The aforesaid report dated 06.02.2009 stands withdrawn by the respondents as is disclosed in the affidavit in reply. We have expressed our disinclination to grant relief of issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to register offence on the basis of report dated 06.02.2009. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition as the petitioner intends to file a Public Interest Litigation. 3 We make it clear that we are not granting any liberty to the petitioner to file Public Interest Litigation and if at all filed by the petitioner, the same would be decided on its own merits. In the light of the statement, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale