IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2148 OF 2008 Digamber Mahadev Bagwe ....Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents alongwith CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2149 OF 2008 Vasant Hemraj Mehta ...Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. A.P.Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b. Ms. Falguni Brahmbhatt, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Vinit V. Jain i/b. Mr. Girish Kulkarni, for Respondents Mrs. P.H.Kantharia, A.P.P.for the State. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & A.R.JOSHI, JJ DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. Both cases raise the same questions of law and facts. -2- 2. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel and the Public Prosecutor. Mainly, the case has been filed for seeking quashing of F.I.R.Nos. 2 of 2008 and 9 of 2008 registered by the respondent - Police Stations. Briefly stating the Complainant has complained that he had given a Power of Attorney to some of the accused which was cancelled in the year 2005 but on the basis of the same cancelled Power of Attorney, the accused had entered into a sale deed on 31st October, 2007. 3. Prima facie, the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Whether a Power of Attorney was given or whether it was cancelled before the sale deed was executed, are questions which have to be decided during the investigation, which is not disputed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner but when the Complaint of the complainant was referred to the Economic Offences Wing of the Police who investigated the matter by way of preliminary inquiry and came to the conclusion that no offence had been committed by the accused person. On the other hand, some offence had been committed by the complainant himself by forging certain documents. When the matter was about to be concluded by the Economic Offences Wing, the Complainant went to the -3- Magistrate, obtained orders for investigation under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the police has now registered the case and new investigation has started. The investigation cannot be conducted one after the other. We understand that the Economic Offences Wing had not registered any case against anybody and was conducting only preliminary inquiry. 4. If the complainant is aggrieved by any investigation of a complaint by way of preliminary inquiry, he is not rendered remedyless. Even, after the case is registered, if the Investigating Officer gives an opinion that no case is made out, the complainant has a remedy before the Magistrate. We feel that the accused will not get prejudiced if the matter is investigated properly after the registration of the case, which has already been done. However, we direct that the Investigating Officer shall take note of the point of view of the Petitioners as well look into the investigation already conducted by the Economic Offences Wing by way of Preliminary Inquiry. 5. Since, the matter is pending for investigation with various agencies for a long time, we direct that the investigation shall be completed within six weeks from today. The Petitioners may not be arrested, subject to the -4- condition that they shall co-operate with the investigating agency and will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called. The Investigating Officer shall inform the Petitioners in writing and if the Petitioners fail to appear for investigation purposes after receiving a written notice, the Investigating Officer shall be free to proceed in accordance with the provisions of law and if necessary cause the arrest of the Petitioner. The Petition is disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.)