vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.216 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.216 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.216 OF 2009 Ashok Vasudeo Sawant ... Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Sureshkumar J. Panicker a/w Bhavika Kawle for Petitioner Ms.P.P. Shinde, APP, for Respondent State Mr.G.N. Salunkhe for Resp. No.2 CORAM: A.R. JOSHI, J. A.R. JOSHI, J. A.R. JOSHI, J. DATED: APRIL 1, 2009 APRIL 1, 2009 APRIL 1, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard rival submissions at length in the present writ petition. It is filed by the applicant challenging the directions given by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivali, Mumbai directing reinvestigation on 4.9.2008. Such reinvestigation was directed on the application of Respondent No.3 filed on the same date under the complaint for offences u/s 420, 384, 385, 386 of the Indian Penal Code filed against the accused being C.C. No.76/M/2008. The grievance of the petitioner accused is that prior to passing any such order of reinvestigation, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court should have first decided the matter on the earlier police report which was not incriminating against the accused as alleged. Secondly it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that there cannot be any such repeated directions by the Magistrate for again reinvestigating the complaints u/s 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. Though the following authorities are cited on : 2 : behalf of the Petitioner i.e. Madhavrao Gajanan Madhavrao Gajanan Madhavrao Gajanan Deshpande v/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2003 ALL MR Deshpande v/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2003 ALL MR Deshpande v/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1460; Maksud Saiyed v/s. State of Gujarat & (Cri) 1460; Maksud Saiyed v/s. State of Gujarat & (Cri) 1460; Maksud Saiyed v/s. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2008) 5 SCC 668 and Vasant Laxman Ruikar v/s. Ors., (2008) 5 SCC 668 and Vasant Laxman Ruikar v/s. Ors., (2008) 5 SCC 668 and Vasant Laxman Ruikar v/s. S.Y. Khaire & Ors., (2001) 3 Mh.L.J. 409 S.Y. Khaire & Ors., (2001) 3 Mh.L.J. 409 S.Y. Khaire & Ors., (2001) 3 Mh.L.J. 409, in none of the authorities it is specifically crystallised that no repeated investigations can be conducted. On the contrary, the ratios propounded by such authorities indicate that it is the duty of the Magistrate to apply his mind and not to mechanically accept any police report given on directions of the Magistrate u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. 2. As against this submission, on behalf of Respondent No.3, shelter of the ratios propounded by the following authorities were taken viz., M.C. Abraham & M.C. Abraham & M.C. Abraham & Anr. v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2003(1) LJSOFT Anr. v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2003(1) LJSOFT Anr. v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2003(1) LJSOFT (SC) 5, Sakiri Vasu v/s. State of U.P. Ors., (2008) 2 (SC) 5, Sakiri Vasu v/s. State of U.P. Ors., (2008) 2 (SC) 5, Sakiri Vasu v/s. State of U.P. Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 409 SCC 409 SCC 409 and it is specifically submitted that it is open to the Magistrate to disagree with the police report and to take cognisance and he can certainly direct the Officer to make proper investigation and can further monitor the same (though he should not himself investigate). This observations are quoted from the paragraph 29 of the decision in Sakiri Vasu v/s. State Sakiri Vasu v/s. State Sakiri Vasu v/s. State of U.P. (supra) of U.P. (supra) of U.P. (supra). : 3 : 3. What transpires from the ratios is that it is the subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate to come to the conclusion whether to initiate the action on the complaint on the basis of the police report submitted or to take any other steps to further satisfy himself if the circumstances warranted. It appears that in the present case, the circumstances as to application by respondent No.3 asking for reinvestigation had appealed to the Magistrate as such the impugned order of reinvestigation came to be passed. Needless to mention that yet such further investigation is awaited and report is yet to be brought before the learned Magistrate. When it is done, definitely the learned Magistrate can take cognisance of the same and pass appropriate orders according to law. In fact, at this stage, it is a matter yet with the police for investigation. 4. Under these circumstances, it is not warranted to interfere with the said order of reinvestigation which is challenged and hence, the present writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Under the circumstances, there are no any orders of staying any proceedings before the learned Magistrate. All the ad-interim reliefs granted earlier shall stand vacated. : 4 : (A.R. JOSHI, J.)