:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 229 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2356 OF 2005 Chetan Ashokkumar Patil ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Umesh Mankapure for applicant. Mr. A.S. Gadkari, APP for respondent no.1-State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & B.H. MARLAPALLE & B.H. MARLAPALLE & J.H. J.H. J.H. BHATIA, JJ. BHATIA, JJ. BHATIA, JJ. Date Date Date : : : April 20, 2009. April 20, 2009. April 20, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. We have heard Mr. Mankapure the learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Gadkari, the learned APP, has placed before us the affidavit of Shri Hamid Ismail Shaikh, Police Head Constable, who was the I.O. in C.R. No. 192 of 2003 registered with the Vishrambag Police Station at Sangli. 2. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2356 of 2005 was disposed off with the observations that the petitioner’s remedy was before the Sessions Court to challenge the order passed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. However, it has been pointed out in this :2: application that the Advocate, who appeared before us (Shri Sandeep Kume) was not familiar with the facts of the case and had erroneously made the statement when the petition was called out for hearing. The court proceeded on the basis that it was a private complaint registered as S.C.C. No. 2054 of 2003. This application states that an F.I.R. was lodged with the Police Station and the complaint is, therefore, at the instance of the State. The record supports these contentions and we, therefore, heard Mr. Mankapure afresh on the merits of Writ Petition No. 2356 of 2005. 3. The affidavit filed by the I.O. today states that on completion of investigation, charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 509 of IPC came to be filed on 10/12/2003 i.e. much before the petition was filed before us. This factum of filing of the charge-sheet earlier has not reflected in the petition memo and the petitioner prayed for quashing of the F.I.R. Once the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent court on investigation by the police, the trial court will have to proceed with the complaint on its own merits and a petition to quash :3: the F.I.R. need not be entertained. Mr. Mankapure, therefore, sought leave to withdraw the application so as to approach the trial court with appropriate application. 4. Hence, leave granted and the application is disposed as withdrawn with liberty as is available in law. (J.H. (J.H. (J.H. Bhatia,J.) Bhatia,J.) Bhatia,J.) (B.H. (B.H. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.)