1 wp169110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1691 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 462 OF 2010 Jayshree D/o. Manilal Shah ...Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the Petitioner Mr. D.P. Adsule, A.P.P., for the State Ms. Rebecca Gonsalves for C.B.I. Mr. Suresh Pakale with Ms. S. Kamble for Respondents No. 2(a) and (c) Mrs. Pravina J. Kunani for the Intervener in the Application Ms. Seena Pawade for B.M.C. CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE: 10TH FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C.:- Two reliefs have been claimed in this petition. The first relief is to transfer the investigation of Case No. 187/M/2005 to some other investigating agency. Insofar as this relief is concerned, the same 2 wp169110 was specifically pressed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1003 of 2009, as can be discerned from the decision of another Division Bench of this Court dated 28th January, 2010. The Court plainly rejected the relief on the finding that no case was made out to transfer the investigation to any other agency. It is not possible to entertain same relief by way of successive petitions. 2. The second relief is to quash the order dated 23rd March, 2010 passed by the Magistrate on the report submitted by the Investigating Officer dated 25th February, 2010. It appears that the petitioner wanted the Magistrate to issue direction of re-investigation of the case. That contention has been dealt with in the order dated 23rd March, 2010, which is the subject-matter of challenge in this petition by way of second relief. The same has been negatived by the concerned Magistrate. However, the question is as to whether the ‘C’ Summary Report submitted by the Investigating Officer dated 25th February, 2010 deserves to be accepted or any other direction needs to be issued. There is no discussion in that behalf in the order dated 22nd March, 2010. 3. It is common ground before us by the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, including the State of Maharashtra, 3 wp169110 that no specific observation in that behalf has been made by the concerned Magistrate. If it is so, the question as to whether the ‘C’ Summary Report, as filed by the Investigating Officer, deserves to be accepted is a matter which will have to be examined by the concerned Magistrate in the first instance. 4. Needless to observe that it is open to the Magistrate to return the ‘C’ Summary Report by the Investigating Officer; and, instead, direct further investigation in the case, if the fact situation of the case so warrants. That is the discretion of the concerned Magistrate before whom the police report under Section 173(2) of the Code is submitted. It is not appropriate for this Court to examine the said aspect in exercise of Writ Jurisdiction in the first instance. 5. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of, with direction to the concerned Magistrate to pass appropriate order on the ‘C’ Summary Report submitted by the Investigating Officer dated 25th February, 2010. All questions in that behalf are left open, to be dealt with by the Magistrate on their own merits, in accordance with law. 4 wp169110 6. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate will expedite the decision on the ‘C’ Summary Report, as the complaint pertains to year 2005. He is free to pass appropriate order as may be advised, preferably not later than 31st March, 2011. All parties appearing through counsel before us assure to extend full co-operation to the concerned Magistrate for consideration of ‘C’ Summary Report within specified time. 7. In view of the order passed in Criminal Writ Petition, nothing survives for consideration in the Application, which is disposed of accordingly. A.P. BHANGALE, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.