1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 693 OF 2008 Dist.: MUMBAI Ramesh Laxman Prabhu ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr. S.L. Prabhu for the Petitioner Mr. A.R. Patil, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATE: APRIL 28, 2008 P. C.:- On 13th June, 2005, the Magistrate referred the matter for investigation, and investigation report was filed by way of “C” Summary. Thereafter, it appeared that the petitioner moved an application presented against the filing of “C” Summary. The Magistrate passed an order on 12th December, 2007, saying, “I.O. Present. I.O. to comply the order dated 13/6/2005 of this Court.” He adjourned the matter to 20th February, 2008. 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner wants this Court to assume that by saying that I.O. should comply the order dated 13th June, 2005, the Magistrate had, in fact, asked for re-investigation. This could have been better answered by the Magistrate. Therefore, the petitioner should approach the Magistrate for disposal of his application seeking re-investigation. 3. In our view, that application had not been disposed of on 12th February, 2007, as the matter was adjourned to 20th February, 2008. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Magistrate is not available, and the post of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, Mumbai, is vacant. Let the matter be taken up by 43rd Court, as the 24th Court is not available. The said Magistrate may pass the order after hearing the I.O., the Public Prosecutor and the Petitioner's counsel. 5. This petition is accordingly disposed of. BILAL NAZKI, J. V.M. KANADE, J.