1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3592 OF 2009 Mansoor Abbas Lokhandwala ..Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondents Mr. A. P. Mundargi with Mr. Subodh Desai for Applicant. Ms. M. H. Mhatre – APP for State. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED : 12TH AUGUST, 2009. P.C. : 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent 2. The only grievance made on behalf of the applicant is that the Magistrate has wrongly refused to look into the defects in investigation pointed out by the applicant. The applicant had pointed out that the police had not seized the share certificate, minutes book of the society etc. on the basis of which the case made out by the applicant will be borne out. 3. The learned trial court has taken the view that since the investigation was already ordered earlier under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and a charge sheet 2 has been filed, there is no need to again issue directions for investigation in the said crime under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 4. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate seems to have viewed the request on behalf of the applicant as a prayer that the court should point out the line of investigation. The Order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is obviously contrary to law. The complainant has no recourse except to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. both at the initial stage and after an investigation is done. Indeed, there is no other forum before which the complainant can point out defects in an improper investigation. The Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [(2008) 2 S.C.C. 409)] has reported its earlier decision in Union of India vs. Prakash P. Hinduja [(2003) 6 SCC 195] as follows: “29. In Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja (SCC vide para 13) it has been observed by this Court that a Magistrate cannot interfere with the investigation by the police. However, in our opinion, the ratio of this decision would only apply when a proper investigation is being done by the police. If the Magistrate on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is satisfied that proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the officer in charge of the police station concerned, he 3 can certainly direct the officer in charge of the police station to make a proper investigation and can further monitor the same (though he should not himself investigate).” 5. Thus, the impugned order is set aside. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, is directed to reconsider the application of the applicant and decide and order proper investigation in accordance with law. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall decide the application filed by the applicant for reinvestigation before proceeding with the other stages of the trial. 6. Application is allowed with the above directions. (S. A. BOBDE, J.)