1 wp2482.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2482 OF 2011 KJ Subhash Suryaprasad Mishra )..Petitioner Versus Senior Inspector of Police & Ors. )..Respondents ---- Ms.Mallika Ingale for the petitioner. Mr.V.B.Konde-deshmukh APP for the respondent/State. Mr.S.Y.Mohite Addl. S.P State CID, Pune. ---- CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & P.D.KODE, JJ DATE : 12th October, 2011 PC 1 Three substantive reliefs have been prayed in this petition. The first is to direct the respondent nos.1 & 3 to produce all papers concerning investigation of C.R.No.I-22 of 2011 registered at Manor police station with all relevant papers about the direction and arrest of the petitioner in the case. The second relief is to 2 wp2482.11.sxw quash C.R.No.I-22 of 2011 registered at Manor police station. The third relief is to direct the respondent no.2 to hold an inquiry in respect of representation made by the petitioner dated 18.7.2011. 2 Insofar as first two reliefs are concerned, the same are overlapping. The relief of production of papers is sought to facilitate the petitioner to ask for relief of quashing of FIR after the original papers are produced. Accordingly, we deal with these two reliefs together. It is noticed that the FIR was registered at Manor police station on the basis of statement made by Sanjay Ambekar. The relief of quashing is founded on the sole argument that one Vijay Tukaram Powar, who was associated with the investigation of the said C.R, has sworn affidavit dated 16.7.2011 which records that subsequently Anil Hari Taware who has given his statement on 14.3.2011, instead, asserted that case mentioned by him about the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of offence was under influence of liquor. Assuming that the affidavit of Vijay Powar is to be accepted as it is, we fail to understand as to how that can be the basis to quash the FIR. That is a matter for 3 wp2482.11.sxw investigation and trial if and when occasion arises. 3 So far as FIR is concerned, it refers to the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of crime. In that case, the question of quashing FIR does not arise. Accordingly relief of quashing of FIR is rejected. 4 In addition, we may place on record the statement made by the learned APP that looking at the manner in which investigation has proceeding, it was thought appropriate to transfer the investigation to independent agency. Accordingly, the investigation is presently entrusted to Additional Superintendent of Police, State CID. Even for this reason, the question of quashing of FIR does not arise. 5 That takes us to the third relief to direct respondent no.2 to make inquiry into the representation made by the petitioner. Learned APP on instructions states that the said inquiry has been completed by the Sub Divisional officer, Palghar Division who has 4 wp2482.11.sxw submitted his report dated 30.9.2011. For that reason, the question of considering relief in terms of prayer clause-(c) of the petition does not arise. 6 Counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the petitioner be permitted to pursue relief of compensation for his illegal detention between 16th and 17th March 2011. This submission is made on the basis of prayer clause-(d) of the petition. However, prayer clause-(d) is only in the nature of interim relief during the pendency of the petition. The petitioner if so advised, is free to pursue that relief by way of appropriate proceeding before the concerned court which will be considered on its own merits. Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms (P.D.KODE,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) 5 wp2482.11.sxw