: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.215 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NOS.2237 & 2249 OF 2004 Nitendrasingh @ Nitin K. Patil ....Petitioner V/s. Arvind H. Salve & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.Nitendrasingh K. Patil - Petitioner in person. Mr.A.I. Patel, AGP for Respondent No.9. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 14TH OCTOBER, 2008. P.C. : 1. At the request of the Petitioner, the advocate is discharged. The Petitioner is allowed to argue in person. 2. The Petitioner alleges contempt against Respondent Nos.1 to 8 who are various officers in the Police Department and Anti Corruption Bureau. The contempt is alleged on the basis that various proceedings including departmental enquiry, registration of offence and prosecution have been initiated against him on the basis of the investigation carried out during the period 11.11.2004 to 17.8.2005. It is contended that the investigation : 2 : during this period was void and bad in law in view of the order of the learned Judge of this Court dated 1.7.2005 in Criminal Writ Petition No.2237 of 2004 filed by one Uttamrao Laxman Kadam vs. State of Maharashtra and others and Criminal Writ Petition No.2249 of 2004 filed by Ramrao E. Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and another. 3. In those cases on a complaint filed by Respondent No.4, a trap was laid. It is not necessary to deal with the allegations therein. Ultimately an F.I.R. was registered on 31.7.2004. A report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the Investigating Officer stating that it is decided that no further action against the Petitioners therein should be taken as no evidence was available against them. The report also indicates that as far as the present Petitioner is concerned, the State Government declined to grant sanction to prosecute him. The learned Special Judge held that further investigation under Section 173(8) was required to be conducted and directed the Director General either to take up further investigation himself or depute any officer of the rank of D.I.G. or above D.I.G. rank for such investigation. The learned single Judge by the said order dated 1.7.2005 quashed the order dated 15.10.2004 passed by the Special Judge. : 3 : 4. It was contended that the order dated 1.7.2005 having quashed the order of the Special Judge dated 15.10.2004, the investigation carried out in the meantime between 11.11.2004 and 17.8.2005 is illegal, null and void. 5. I will presume that the submission is well founded. In that event however, it would be open to the Petitioner to adopt proceedings in accordance with law or to raise the contention in any proceedings that may be adopted against them. I do not consider the mere filing of the proceedings to warrant action under the Contempt of Courts Act. The Petitioner has raised a strong grievance that despite the representation, the investigation carried out during this time has been used by the authorities. The concerned authorities are at liberty to consider the representation. 6. In the circumstances, the Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of.