1 wp.2873-2010 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2873 OF 2010 Muktabai Baban Mali ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. ----- Mr. Rahul S. Kate, for the petitioner. Mr. Y.S. Shinde, APP for the State. Mr. A.P. Mundargi, i/b Mr. Sanket Telang, for Respondent no.4. ---- CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. AUGUST 11, 2011. P.C.: 1. We have heard Mr. Kate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shinde, the learned APP for the State and Mr. Mundargi, the learned counsel for the added respondents. 2. This Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India prays for transfer of the investigation in CR no.6 of 2 wp.2873-2010 2010 registered with Patan Police Station to the State C.I.D. 3. As directed by us, Shri K.M.M. Prasanna, District Superintendent of Police, Satara has filed his affidavit. On completion of the investigation in CR no.6 of 2010, the Investigating Officer has submitted the chargesheet in the court of the learned J.M.F.C. at Satara on 22.7.2011 for the offences punishable under Section 292 of IPC, Sections 4 and 5 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 and under Section 67(A) of Information Technology Act, 2000. 4. In his affidavit, the Superintendent of Police has clarified as to how the suspicion about the involvement of respondent no.4 was raised on account of the report submitted by the Police Officer (P.I. Mr. Kedage) who has been subsequently recommended for a departmental action for negligence and dereliction of duty. The final report submitted on 22.7.2011 has named three accused i.e. Ajay Arun Ghone, Dnyanshwar alias Harish Balkrishna Tawate and Shankar Vitthal Mohite. 5. Prima facie, no case was made out for investigation against respondent no.4 in respect of alleged offence in CR no.6 of 2010. We 3 wp.2873-2010 accept the reasoning set out in the affidavit-in-reply, and there is no case made out to entertain this Petition for directions to transfer the investigation to the State C.I.D. 6. Hence, the Petition is rejected. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)