1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 302 OF 2001 1 Purushottam s/o Gangabhishan Somani, age 32 years, occ. Business, r/o Babalgaon, Tq.Pathri, District : Parbhani, At present Jategaon,Tq. Georai, District Beed, 2 Shivkanaya w/o Purushottam Somani, age 29 years, occ. Household, r/o Babalgaon, Tq. Pathri, District Parbhani, At present Jategaon, Tq. Georai, District Beed ...Petitioners VERSUS 1 State of Maharashtra, 2 The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Shivaji Nagar Road, Nanded, 3 The District Superintendent of Police, District Parbhani, 4 The Deputy Inspector of Police, Sailu, Tq. Sailu, District Parbhani, 5 The Police Inspector, Police Station Pathri, Tq. Pathri, District Parbhani, 6 Shri A.M.Sanap, age major, occ. Service, 2 working Police Inspector, r/o Pathri, Tq. Pathri, District Parbhani. ...Respondents ..... Shri A.S.Bajaj, advocate for the petitioners Shri K.S.Patil, APP for the respondents ..... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 5th February, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Hardas, J.) 1 This is a petition of the year 2001, filed by the petitioners seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to investigate the first information report No. 8 of 1997 by reopening the same and to recover the goods lying in the wells as indicated by the petitioners. 2 We may briefly advert to the facts of the present case, which are that on 14.1.1997 when petitioner no.2 returned to the village, the petitioners noticed the shutters of the shop of the petitioners had been broken open and utensils and grocery material was noticed to have been stolen. The petitioners accordingly lodged the first information report at police station, 3 Pathri. On the basis of the said report, an offence vide Crime No. 8 of 1997 came to be registered under Sections 454, 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 3 The grievance of the petitioners is that proper investigation has not been carried out by the respondents/police authorities and though the petitioners had indicated their suspicion about the involvement of the members of the Raner family, no effective investigation was done in that behalf. The grievance of the petitioners further is that stolen articles had been dumped in the well and the police had not recovered the afore said stolen articles. 4 On notice being issued to the respondents, respondents have filed their affidavit in reply and in the affidavit in reply, it is stated that one Head Constable Hashmi had investigated the report submitted by the petitioners in respect of the theft in their shop. Statements of witnesses had been recorded and it was noticed that there was insufficient evidence and accordingly B summary report No. 6 of 1997 had been submitted before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pathri. It is also stated that the report submitted by the petitioners appeared to be a false report. The B summary submitted by police officers has been accepted 4 by the learned Magistrate. In respect of the allegations of the petitioners about the stolen property being dumped in the well, the affidavit in reply states that upon recording the statements of the witnesses, it transpired that no articles have been found in the well prior to registration of the offence. At paragraph 3 of the affidavit in reply, it is stated that after investigation, stolen articles were found in the shop, house of the complainant and father-in-law of the complainant, and the afore said articles had been seized by the investigating officer. 5 In the light of the passage of time and in the light of fact that B summary had been submitted before the Magistrate, which has been accepted by the Magistrate and the investigation disclosed that a false report had been lodged by the petitioners,we are not inclined to grant the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners in this petition. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.)