AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1476 OF 2008 Hanmant Jalindar Langar ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. R.V. Bhosale for the petitioner. Mr. Nitin Pradhan, amicus curiae. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: MRS. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : 1ST FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. In this petition, the petitioner who is the complainant in C.R. No.313 of 2007 registered under Section 302 read with Section 35 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”) with the Mohol Police Station, District Solapur has prayed that investigation of the said CR be transferred to the Central Investigation Department or Central Bureau of AJN 2 Investigation or any other investigating agency. 2. On 29/1/2009, this court appointed Mr. Pradhan as amicus curiae to assist the court. On 13/3/2009, the Government of Maharashtra transferred the investigation of the said CR to the State CID. Accordingly, the State CID has conducted the investigation. Mr. Pradhan has drawn our attention to the affidavit filed by Mr. Sharad Shelar, Superintendent of Police, State CID. He has given details of all investigation so far carried out by the State CID. In paragraph 10 of the said affidavit, he has stated as under : “10. I say that, I have personally supervised the whole investigation carefully and every time I have instructed the concerned Investigating Officer to investigate on different probabilities so as to find out the truth. I have also consulted my seniors during the investigation so as to carry out the same in the right direction. Therefore, I say that, the investigation carried out by the State CID is sufficient and correct. As such, the permission for further investigation under Section 173(8) of Criminal Procedure Code i.e. AJN 3 for carrying out Scientific Test of accused Nagnath Kale is being obtained and the State CID is also trying to record the statement under 164 of the accused Amol Changdev Shinde who has knowledge of the murder and may disclose the true account of crime. Factually, though the permission is rejected by the Session Judge, Solapur, the State CID has challenged the said order before the Hon'ble High Court, Mumbai. ठ 3. Mr. Pradhan states that as stated by Mr. Shelar in the above paragraph, the investigation has been carried out carefully and it is proceeding in the right direction. It is apparent from the affidavit of Mr. Shelar that permission to record statement of one of the accused under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code was sought. However, the permission has been rejected by the Sessions Court, Solapur. The State CID has filed a revision application being Revision Application (Stamp) No.618 of 2009. The said application is pending in this court. Learned A.P.P. states that the said revision application will be prosecuted in accordance with law. He states that the said application will be taken up for admission AJN 4 expeditiously. This statement is accepted. In view of the affidavit of Mr. Shelar and in view of the submission of Mr. Pradhan, learned amicus curiae, that the investigation is proceeding in the right direction, in our opinion, the petition has become infructuous and is disposed of as such. Since, the revision application is pending, we continue the stay of the trial granted by this court on 11/8/2008 for a period of six weeks from today. Thereafter, appropriate order be obtained from learned Single Judge of this court by the investigating officer. [MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.]