Ladda 1 wp-122-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 122 OF 2011. Sou Anuradha Sunil Varma ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors ...Respondents ...... Mr Sachin B. Thorat, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr D.P. Adsule, A.P.P. for State CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED:- 18th February, 2011. P.C. 1. During the course of hearing, Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the fact that respondent no.4 has been discharged by the concerned Court reinforces the grievance of the petitioner that the investigation done by the local police is deficient and is fudged so as to give benefit to Respondent No.4. However, the fact that respondent No. 4 has been already discharged, is not referred to in the entire petition. The petition is filed before this Court after order of discharge was passed. Besides, even though the charge- sheet was available to the petitioner before institution of this petition. The same does not form Ladda 2 wp-122-11 part of record before us. Only if the said document is on record, we would be able to appreciate the argument of the petitioner that the investigation done by the local police is deficient and improper. 2. Realizing this position, Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is resident of Pune and Respondent no.4 is practicing Advocate at Pune. Incidentally, he was also President of Bar Association, Pune and he has used his resources to influence the investigation. Moreover, the petitioner was running from one Advocate to another in Pune. But no one took the responsibility of filing the present petition, till she approached the present Advocate of this Court in the year 2010. That may be so, however, the fact remains that the petitioner has not disclosed the crucial fact about the discharge of Respondent No.4 in the present petition, which is for issuance of direction to entrust the investigation of the case to an independent investigating agency. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he did not realize that the fact that respondent no.4 has already been discharged by the concerned Court is so crucial and for the mistake of Advocate, the litigant should not suffer. 3. Counsel for the petitioner, in all fairness, submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file fresh petition disclosing all relevant facts and also giving justification as to Ladda 3 wp-122-11 why the petition, for the relief as sought, has been moved so belatedly, when the charge-sheet was filed in the year 2007. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)