1 282411 vgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITON NO. 2824 OF 2011 Dhanraj Himmatraj Sanghvi ...Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnan with Ms. S.D. Khot and Mr. Sooraj Hulke for the Petitioner Mr. J.P. Yagnik, A.P.P., for the State CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE: DECEMBER 5, 2011 P.C.:- Mainly, two reliefs have been prayed in this petition. One is for quashing the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 1962/PW of 2007 arising out of C.R. No. 304 of 2007 registered at MIDC Police Station, Mumbai, pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 22nd Court, Andheri, Mumbai. The second relief is to direct respondent No. 4, Commissioner of Police, to initiate appropriate action against 2 282411 respondent No. 3 for having falsely implicated the petitioner in the alleged offence. 2. As regards the prayer for quashing of the entire proceedings, we find that the F.I.R. was registered on 7th June, 2007. Thereafter, investigation was commenced, and, on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 29th November, 2007. At this distance of time, the question of entertaining any challenge to the said proceedings by way of Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not arise. The petitioner, if so advised, is free to take recourse to other remedies as may be permissible by law. The fact that charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner pre-supposes that some material must have been collected by the investigating agency to indicate the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the offence. Whether that material is sufficient or otherwise is a matter to be considered by the concerned Court at the appropriate stage. 3. Reverting to the grievance of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the commission of the alleged offence, that grievance can be considered only after the concerned Court were to fully absolve the petitioner of the alleged crime. The petitioner is free to 3 282411 take whatever defence available to him, and, if his plea finds favour with the concerned Court, there can be no difficulty in keeping the option of the petitioner to proceed against respondent No. 3 for having falsely implicated him in the alleged crime open. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to leave that option open to the petitioner, instead of entertaining that grievance in the present Writ Petition. 4. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue other remedies, and also to seek relief in terms of prayer clause (c), in the event the petitioner is discharged or acquitted after full-fledged trial, as the case may be. All questions in that behalf are left open. 5. Needless to observe that the opinion recorded in this order is only for the limited purpose of considering the request of the petitioner to quash the proceedings at F.I.R. / charge-sheet stage itself; and will not come in the way of the petitioner in pursuing other remedies or defence available to him, which will have to be decided on its own merits by the appropriate Court. R.G. KETKAR, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.