1 wp-538-2011 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 538 OF 2011 Mrs. Khurshid Sayed Faisal ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & anr. ...Respondents Mr.R.M.Upadhyay for petitioner. Mrs.A.S.Pai, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. July 19, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Pai, the learned APP, who had in fact appeared in Criminal Writ Petition No.2665 of 2009 for the State of Maharashtra. 2 wp-538-2011 2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for the following reliefs: (a) This Honorable Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or another appropriate writ directing the Respondent No.2, to register a fresh crime against the accused persons of C.R. No.570 of 2006, for their act of forgery and cheating; (b) This Honorable Court be pleased to direct the respondents to carry out further investigation in C.R.No. 570 of 2006, of Bandra Police Station and file a supplementary charge sheet after recording the statements of crucial witnesses. (c) This Honorable Court be pleased to take suo-moto cognizance against the police officers, who have made false statements and have dared to not following the order of this Honorable Court, for their willful act of Contempt of this Honorable Court.” 3 wp-538-2011 3. The petition has been filed mainly on the premise that this Court was misled while disposing of Criminal Writ Petition No.2665 of 2009 on 6/4/2010 and on the statement made by the learned APP that a charge- sheet, on completion of investigation in C.R. No.570 of 2006, was already filed. By our order dated 12/7/2011 we had, therefore, called upon the I.O. concerned as well as the learned APP to file affidavit to clarify the circumstances under which the charge-sheet was in fact filed on 29/6/2010 and not on or before 10/12/2009 or 6/4/2010. 4. In obedience of our directions Shri Raghoji Vasudeo Sawant, PSI and who was the concerned IO has filed affidavit along with the affidavit of Mrs.Aruna Pai, the learned APP. A copy of the final report in C.R.No. 570 of 2006 is also placed before us and we have noted that the same was approved by the Senior P.I. as well as the Assistant Commissioner of Police on 8th December 2009. In his affidavit Shri Sawant has clarified that he appeared before this Court on 10/12/2009 and orally instructed Mrs.Pai that the charge-sheet was filed. It has been further clarified that when the charge-sheet was filed before the Court, the accused did not remain present and this is supported from the document at Exhibit I 4 wp-538-2011 annexed to the present petition memo. The Court, therefore, accepted the charge-sheet for the first time on 29/6/2010 and the accused remained present before the Court on 17/5/2011. Mrs. Pai, the larned APP in her affidavit has clarified that on 10/12/2009, 29/3/2010 and 6/4/2010 she made specific statements of filing of the charge-sheet before the Court below, on the basis of the oral instructions she had received from Shri Raghoji Sawant and this statement is supported by the affidavit of Shri Sawant as well. 5. Under these circumstances, we are not impressed by the allegations of the petitioner that Criminal Writ petition No.2665 of 2009 was disposed off on the basis of a wrong statement made by the learned APP about filing of the charge-sheet. In fact Mrs. Pai in her affidavit has clarified as to how the learned Advocate for the petitioner also accepted to approach the concerned police station and receive a copy of the charge- sheet. 6. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the petition has not been moved bona fide and the relief prayed for cannot be granted as the charge-sheet has already been filed and this Court was not misled when 5 wp-538-2011 Criminal Writ Petition No.2665 of 2009 was disposed off. 7. The petition is rejected. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)