1 3.wp3178-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3178 OF 2010 Datta Mane. ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra and 5 others. ..Respondents. .......... Mr.Kunal Cheema, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms.S.V. Gajare, A.P.P. for the State. .......... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 20TH JANUARY, 2011. P.C. 1. The principal relief claimed in this Petition is to quash the FIR bearing No.403/2010 lodged by Respondent No.6 against the Petitioner registered with Malad Police Station, Malad (West), Mumbai. Insofar as this relief is concerned, learned A.P.P. on instructions states that the investigation is complete and the Investigating Officer has submitted his report to the Appropriate Authority for granting approval to file B-Summary Report with prosecution of the complainant before the PPD 2 3.wp3178-10 concerned Court. That means, the Investigating Officer is of the opinion that no sufficient material is available to send the Petitioner for trial. In that view of the matter nothing survives for consideration in the said relief - prayer clause (a) of the Petition. 2. The other relief claimed by the Petitioner is to initiate suitable action against Respondent No.3 & Respondent No.6 in the Petition. Respondent No.3 is the concerned Police Official who had initially registered offence in the Bangur Nagar Police Station and trasferred the same to Malad Police Station, which, according to the Petitioner, was situated in the same complex. The fact that the said Police Official could have asked the complainant to report the case in the adjoining police station which was within the same complex, by itself does not mean that the recording of the case by him in his police station is malafide. Whether any action can be initiated against Respondent No.3 for such act of commission and omission would involve disputed questions of facts which cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction. It will be open to the Petitioner to pursue his remedy by way of appropriate proceedings against Respondent No.3 as well as Respondent No.6, if so advised. Insofar as Respondent No.6 is concerned, who is the complainant, even if the Petitioner intends to pursue action against her that would 3 3.wp3178-10 be indeed subject to the outcome of the criminal case which is arising out of FIR No.403 of 2010 being taken to its logical end after submission of the B-Summary report by the Investigating Officer. 3. Learned A.P.P. submits that the Appropriate Authority is expected to decide on the proposal submitted by the Investigating Officer very shortly presumably within one week from today. 4. In view of the above, no further enquiry is necessary in the present Petition. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of leaving all questions open. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)