1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1093 OF 2009 Shirish Narayan Gharat .. Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.P.M.Pradhan for the petitioner. Mr.D.P.Adsule A.P.P. for the State. Mr.Mandar Goswami with S.K.Shinde for respondent no.3 – C.B.I. Mr.Rajeev Patil with Shri Omkar Warange I.O., Mr.Sunil Khaladkar, P.I. Anti Extortion Cell, Crime Branch, Navi Mumbai. Mr.K.R.Popere, Dy. S.P. C.I.D. I.O. present. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 22ND MARCH, 2010. P.C. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to respondent nos.1 and 3 to withdraw the investigation in connection with FIR No.1-65 of 2009 dated 24.4.2009 (C.R.No.65 of 2009) from C.B.D. Belapur police station, New Mumbai and hand it over to the Central Bureau Investigation. It appears that this court vide order dated 9.12.2009 had directed the investigating officer, who was carrying out the investigation, to handover all the investigation papers alongwith a copy of the charge-sheet to the Superintendent of Police, State C.I.D. Branch, Navi Mumbai, who in turn was directed S 2 to appoint an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police as the new Investigating Officer, and the officer so appointed was directed to cause further investigation into the said crime. In view thereof we find that main prayer in the writ petition stands satisfied. 3. In pursuance of the order dated 9.12.2009 the investigation was actually handed over to the Investigating Officer, State C.I.D. on 1.1.2010 and since then he has been carrying out investigation into the said crime. On 23.1.2010 he submitted a report to this court stating as to what steps he had taken till then during investigation of the crime. In the last paragraph of the said report he had mentioned mobile numbers of the accused involved in the case and stated that they would collect print-outs of all those mobiles and on the basis thereof carry out further investigation. Mr.Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the report dated 23.2.2010 and submitted that as stated in the said report the investigating officer has not placed on record the relevant material in respect of the mobile numbers mentioned in the last paragraph of the report. 4. Today, Mr.Adsule, learned A.P.P. has placed on record the another report dated 20.3.2010 stating therein as to what further investigation has been carried out. In the report he has stated that they have already collected print-outs of all the mobile numbers mentioned in the earlier report and they are looking into the print- 3 outs to find out as to who are involved in the said crime. We have perused the report. We are satisfied that the investigating officer is carrying out the investigation properly and effectively and we are sure that he would soon complete the investigation and approach the Magistrate under section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with further report. At this stage Mr.Adsule, learned A.P.P., on instructions, submits that the investigation officer would complete the investigation within one month from today and make further report to the learned Magistrate as provided for under section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His statement is accepted. In the circumstances we would not like to keep this petition pending any further. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. We are sure that the concerned authority shall carry out the investigation objectively and impartially and shall proceed further in accordance with law. 5. On 8th March, 2010 this court, in view of the no objection given by earlier investigating officer – Sunil Khaladkar, for releasing the accused on bail, had issued notice to the concerned officer to remain present in the court to show cause as to why directions be not issued to the concerned authority to take disciplinary action against him. We have perused the affidavit of Mr.Khaladkar. He has placed on record a say filed by the learned A.P.P. to the application for bail. The say shows that he had objected release of the accused on bail. We do not wish to enter into a controversy whether the investigating officer committed any misconduct or whether his conduct requires to 4 be investigated and whether any disciplinary action deserves to be taken against him. We leave it to the concerned authority to look into the allegations against Mr.Khaladkar and take appropriate action, if it is found that he has committed any misconduct. We are not expressing any opinion while referring this matter to the concerned authority. We hope and are sure that the concerned authority shall take appropriate decision in respect thereof at the earliest. 6. Mr.Adsule, learned A.P.P. is directed to forward all the orders, passed by this court after 9.12.2009 in this petition, alongwith the affidavit of Mr.Khaladkar to the concerned authority within a period of two weeks from today. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.)