1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3342 OF 2011 Mr.Biscuitya Giranwala Bhosale .. Petitioner V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Mr.A.M.Saraogi, Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mrs.A.S.Pai, APP for the State. Mr.P.N.Dasare, PSI attached to Virar Police Station, present. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE: 17th November, 2011. P.C.: 1. Broadly, three reliefs have been claimed in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The first is to direct the Respondents to entrust the investigation of the case to CBI or any other appropriate independent authority. 2. As regards this relief is concerned, the same will have to be turned down for two reasons. Firstly, because the investigation is complete and the chargesheet is already filed on 09.03.2009. Besides, we fail to understand as to how the accused can have a choice about who should be appointed as the investigating agency. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that false record has been 2 created by the Investigating Officer. That however is a matter which can be considered by the trial Court, and defence available to the petitioner in the pending criminal case. 4. We are of the opinion that the first part of the relief claimed, i.e. to transfer the investigation to CBI, cannot be countenanced in the fact situation of the present case. 5. The other relief is to quash the MCOC Case No.3 of 2009 registered against the petitioner. As aforesaid, the investigation is complete and the chargesheet has also been filed. If the petitioner has any grievance, the petitioner will be free to approach the trial Court for relief of discharge. The question of quashing of criminal case being MCOC Case No.3 of 2009 at this distance of time, does not arise. 6. In the context of this observation, Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be permitted to pursue the remedy of discharge by leaving all the questions open. We have no difficulty in acceding to this request. The petitioner will be free to apply for discharge before the trial Court, which application will be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law. 7. The third relief is to award compensation to the petitioner to be 3 paid by the officers who were responsible for causing fracture to the left hand of the petitioner. In connection with this grievance, incidental relief is claimed so as to direct an inquiry against the said police officers. As regards this relief is concerned, the same can be considered provided the petitioner were to amend the present petition and confine the petition for that relief. 8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be permitted to withdraw this petition and file fresh petition containing only those facts which are relevant for grant of the said relief. 9. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh writ petition for relief of compensation referred to above. 10.Since Mr.Saraogi is appearing as Amicus Curiae, we may permit him to present proper petition limiting to the aforesaid relief. As he is appearing as Amucus Curiae, the office shall not insist for filing of his fresh vakalatnama. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)