1 wp.1086-2011 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1086 OF 2011 Amrut Patel & Ors. ...Petitioners. Vs. U.T. of Dadra And Nagar Haveli & Anr. ...Respondents. ----- Mr. Balkrishna Joshi, for the Petitioners. Mr. D.A. Nalawade, for Respondent Nos.1. Dr. F. R. Shaikh, APP for the State. Mr. S.V. Marwadi, for Respondent No.3. ---- CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. JULY 12, 2011. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioners at length. 2. Mr. Nalavade, the learned counsel for respondent no.1 has placed before us a copy of the charge-sheet submitted in F.I.R. no. 21 of 2011 on 2 wp.1086-2011 30.6.2011. The F.I.R. was registered on 24.1.2011. In the said charge sheet, the petitioner no.1 is shown as accused no.7, and petitioner nos.2 and 3 have been shown as absconding accused. A charge sheet has been filed for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 120B and 506 of the IPC. 3. Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioners urged before us that even though the charge sheet is filed in the court of the learned Chief Magistrate at Dadra and Nagar Haveli at Silvasa, the investigation has been tainted, influenced under extraneous considerations and the Investigating Officer was biased. By relying upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Rajni Vishram Patil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. [ (2009) ALL MR (Cri) 3262]. Shri Joshi submitted that statements of some material eye-witnesses had not been recorded. The Investigating Officer screened the witnesses and the investigation was conducted in most casual and dishonest manner. He, therefore, urged that despite the charge sheets having been filed, the petitioners have made out a case to direct further investigation to be conducted by another Investigating Officer. 4. We are not impressed by these submissions. In the case of Vineet Narain Vs. Union of India & another [ (1998) 1 SCC 226], the Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines and observed as under: “5. In case of persons against whom a prima facie case is made out 3 wp.1086-2011 and a charge-sheet is filed in the competent court, it is that court which will then deal with that case on merits, in accordance with law.” 5.. Mr. Joshi, invited our attention to the following observations made by this court in the case of Smt. Rajni Vishram Patil (Supra) by following the law laid down in Vineet Narain’s case, which reads as under “ ----primarily, matters of trial and all further investigation can be dealt with by the trial court handling the matters. But this is not an absolute rule of law which would completely oust the jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 whenever a charge-sheet is filed before the trial court. Such a jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court within a limited compass and cannot be used as a means to interfere with the progress of the trial or, for that matter, further investigation but wherever there is a mala fide or colourable investigation or when the investigation is influenced by matters unconnected with a proper and fair investigation, the Court would have the jurisdiction to interfere in the matters. It is not for the High Court to appreciate matters of evidence but wherever an investigating agency has under extraneous influence conducted an 4 wp.1086-2011 investigation offensive to the preservation of the rule of law, the Court would have the jurisdiction to interfere and if necessary to monitor the investigation. 6. Mr. Joshi submitted before us that the Investigating Officer has acted with malice and conducted colourable investigation and that too under extraneous influence by the political parties of the opposite side. He contended that the statements of some material eye-witnesses have not been recorded, and there is no evidence to implicate any of the accused. 7. In our view, all these issues will have to be addressed before the trial court, on copy of the charge sheet. Petitioners’ remedy is to apply for discharge or further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr. P.C. If such an application is filed before the trial court, there can be no doubt that the trial court will consider it on its own merit. We, therefore, do not find any necessity to continue this Petition after the charge sheet is filed, and more so when there is nothing on record that any complaint was addressed to the higher police authorities, pointing out that the investigation going on was biased or colourable or conducted under an extraneous influence. 5 wp.1086-2011 8. Hence, the Petition is rejected with liberty as is available in law, and we make it clear that any application that would be filed by the petitioners before the trial court will be considered on the basis of its own merits, and without being influenced by any observations made by us in this order. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)