{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.115 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.863 OF 2009 Murlidhar s/o Parbhat Patil PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. N.L.Jadhav, Advocate for petitioner Mr. N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondents State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 16th April 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By the present contempt petition the petitioner has alleged that the respondents have violated the order passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.863/2009 and have not complied with the directions of this Court while conducting the investigation, in view of statement recorded in para 9 of the order passed in the Criminal Writ Petition No.863/2009. However, while disposing of the criminal writ petition, in the last paragraph of the {2} order, this Court has made it clear that in case charge sheet is filed against the petitioners, then they are at liberty to move this Court once again. By relying heavily on the observations in paragraphs No.9 and 10, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the investigation is not carried out as per the directions of this Court and hence the alleged contempt. This Court is not in agreement with these submissions. It was made clear that in case charge sheet is filed against the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court once again, it does not mean that the petitioner is at liberty to file contempt petition. However, proper remedy is either to apply for discharge from the charge sheet or to pray for quashing of the FIR. Obviously, if the charge sheet is filed after carrying out investigation, which according to the petitioner is not as per the directions of this Court, then contempt petition is certainly not a remedy. In the result, the contempt petition, which is sans merits stands rejected summarily. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/cp115-10