1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 890 of 2011 Bombay Textile Research Association & Others ...Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Another ...Respondents Mr.Satish Maneshinde a/w. Ashish Chavan & Ms. Anusha Jegadesh i/b. Bharucha & Partners for Petitioners. Mrs.V.R.Bhonsale, APP for Respondent No.1 State. Mr. Niteen Pradhan a/w. Murtuza Najmi i/b. A.C.Singh for Respondent No. 2 Mr.Dilip Shinde, Police Inspector from D.N.Nagar Police Station. CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 13th JULY, 2011. P.C. 1. Respondent No.2 filed complaint in the Court of the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitn Magistrate, 10th Court, at Andheri, Mumbai, being C.C.No.2/Misc/2010. The Court is informed that the said learned 2 Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order as per Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Court is informed that Mr.Dilip N. Shinde, Inspector of Police, attached to D.N.Nagar Police Station is investigating the said complaint, and that the final report has not been filed by the concerned police officer. The present petition is filed for setting aside the order of investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 2. After hearing counsels on both sides, I am inclined to observe that till such time the report is filed by the concerned Police Officer and orders are passed on the said report by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, before whom the said complaint was filed, it would not be proper for this court to interfere. 3. Learned Counsel Mr. Maneshinde, on behalf of his client i.e. applicant no.2 onwards, states that all documents which were demanded by the concerned police officer or his superiors have been supplied. He states that, in addition to that, if some documents are required , his clients are prepared to do so. He submits that as his clients are getting calls on telephone and they are asked to report to the concerned police station with short notice, his clients face 3 inconvenience from time to time so far as investigation is concerned. 4. I am of the view that if the police have to carry out investigation they have to do so in a systematic manner. If in the course of investigation the police want that the applicants should comply with requisitions, applicants will have to be given proper intimation and time. Learned Counsel Mr. Maneshinde contended that the concerned Officer is not carrying out investigation in proper manner and that applicants are harassed. In so far as this aspect is concerned, if any of the applicant is having grievance against the concerned officer, he is free to make complaint to the superiors of the concerned officer so that the said superior officer can look into the matter and sort out the matter. It would not be proper for this court to go into the said complaint. 5. So far as seeking documentary material from any of the applicant, I am inclined to observe that the concerned officer shall address a letter to a particular accused, against whom the complaint is filed and ask him to submit the documents. For this he shall give atleast 72 hours notice. So far as calling of a particular applicant for 4 interrogation, the concerned officer shall give 72 hours notice in writing and thereafter he can expect the said applicant to be before him for interrogation. In addition to the service of the notice upon the concerned applicant, the concerned officer shall serve a copy of the same on the Advocate for the applicant who has filed the application, so that there is no grievance about service of notice. 6. In my view, the aforesaid arrangement will meet ends of justice as of today. 7. In view of the above, this application is disposed off in terms of directions mentioned above. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)