1 211411 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY vgm CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2114 OF 2011 Meva Lal Yadav & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Ganesh Gole for the Petitioners Mr. P.A. Pol, P.P., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and 9 Mr. Vijay Thorat, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sanjiv Sawant and Mr. Sachin Kadam for Respondent No. 7 Mr. D.D. Madon, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Himanshu Kode and Mr. Samir Suryawanshi for Respondent No. 8 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND R.G. KETKAR, JJ DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 2011 P.C.:- Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The first relief claimed in this petition is to direct respondent No. 9 to register F.I.R. on the basis of complaint dated 2 211411 7th June, 2011 (Exhibit ‘R’ to the petition). In the first place, it is not an oral or written information given by the aggrieved person to the police officer. The said document (Exhibit ‘R’) is a legal notice. Secondly, the contents of the said document, taken as it is, do not disclose commission of fresh cognizable offence. It is relevant to mention that earlier, the petitioners had approached this Court, on the basis of which, direction has been given to not only register the offence, but to be investigated by the State C.I.D. As investigation in respect of that offence is already in progress, if the Investigating Officer in that case is of the opinion that the structures, which have since been demolished, which demolition has resulted in destruction of evidence, needless to observe that the Investigating Officer in the earlier case, would be free to apply appropriate I.P.C. provisions and any other legal provisions to proceed against persons responsible for such destruction of evidence without authority of law. While investigating that aspect, the concerned Investigating Officer will have to examine all angles and proceed in the matter, as may be advised, in accordance with law. In our opinion, relief in terms of prayer clause (b) cannot be countenanced. 3. As far as prayer clauses (c) and (d) are concerned, the same are in respect of MECR No. 7/2010 and MECR No. 14/2010. 3 211411 The petitioners cannot be allowed to seek relief in respect of two separate causes of action in one petition. Therefore, prayer clauses (c) and (d) in the petition are disposed of, with liberty to the petitioners to pursue such other remedy as may be permissible by law. All questions in that behalf are kept open. 4. Petition disposed of on the above terms. R.G. KETKAR, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.