1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.778 OF 2009 Ramkrushna s/o Kachru Gande ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. T.W. Pathan, holding for Smt. Vandana Raut, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. B.J. Sonwane, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondents 1 to 3. Shri. S.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.5. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & SHRIHARI P DAVARE,JJ. DATE: 23rd SEPTEMBER 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) Perused the reply of the State. 3) The grievance of the petitioner is that the investigating officer in this case has intentionally filed a weak charge sheet which was 2 favourable to the accused persons. The learned counsel submits that inspite of the investigation being under process, the respondent No.5 – accused was permitted to withdraw the amount from the bank. Huge amount of small investors and poor persons, according to the counsel, was fraudulently utilized by respondent No.5. 4) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has filed affidavit-in-reply. According to the A.P.P., the Commissioner of Police had addressed the complaint filed by the petitioner and the matter was investigated by the police. After completing investigation, ultimately a charge sheet is filed against the accused persons, respondent No.5 being one of the accused, according to the Additional Public Prosecutor. 5) At this stage, therefore, we find that the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation be handed over to C.I.D. Is not sustainable. The Judicial 3 Magistrate is having ample powers which can be utilized by the Magistrate in the facts and circumstances of the case emerging out of the charge sheet. 6) The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 has placed reliance on a reported judgment in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2004 SC 4753 in support of his submissions. 7) In exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution no interference is called for. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed. There is no expression by this Court on the merits of the matter or the allegations made by the parties against each other. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ crwp.778.2009