1 wp-1010-2011 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1010 OF 2011 Anil Chandrakant Kokate ...Petitioner (Org.Complainant) Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents With CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.291 OF 2011 (FOR INTERVENTION) IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1010 OF 2011 Nilesh Bapusaheb Mane Deshmukh & ors. ...Applicants (Org. Accused Nos.2 to 4) Versus Anil Chandrakant Kokate & ors. ...Respondents Mr.Rajiv Patil with Mr.Anand Kulkarni for petitioner. Mr.A.S.Gadkari, APP for State. Mr.Surel Shah for applicants. 2 wp-1010-2011 CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. June 23, 2011. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr.Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner – original complainant in C.R.No.55 of 2010 registered with Akluj Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 of IPC. It is the case of the petitioner that though the charge-sheet has been filed, the investigation was not conducted in a professional manner and was a haphazard exercise and, therefore, there is a strong possibility that the investigation was aimed at assisting the accused persons. It was further alleged that a number of eye witnesses were excluded from the list of witnesses and their statements were not recorded. Mr.Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted a list of such eye witnesses and he claims that there is a strong case made out for further investigation. The names of these claimed eye witnesses are Balasaheb Kokate, Bhagwat Kokate, Dada Kokate, Vasudeo Kokate, Sunil Kokate, Siddheshwar Kokate, Pramod Kokate, Appasaheb Jagdale, Pradip Jagdale, Mahesh Jagdale, Jaysinha Mohite Patil and Tanaji Misal. 3 wp-1010-2011 2. Mr.Surel Shah, the learned counsel for the intervenor accused nos.2 to 4 on the other hand submitted that this petition is by way of an afterthought so as to implicate innocent persons as accused and, therefore, the petition deserves to be rejected more so when the charge has been framed on 29/4/2011 by the Sessions Court. 3. Mr.Gadkari, the learned APP states on instructions from the present IO, PI Shri D.B. Nighot from Akluj Police Station, that an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. will be submitted before the Sessions Court for recording the statements of additional witnesses and the IO will be bound by the order that may be passed by the Sessions Court on such an application. It would be, therefore, appropriate that when the Sessions Court is seized of the case, the application for further investigation is considered by the very same Court and it may have a better advantage to decide such application on its own merits. However, when such an application is submitted, the trial Court is expected to decide the same expeditiously on its own merits so that the trial is not delayed. 4 wp-1010-2011 4. We have, therefore, noted down the statement made by the learned APP for filing an application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court and the petition is disposed off. 5. Criminal Application No.291 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed as such. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)