WP.481-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 481 of 2010 Bapu Narayan Romane ... Petitioner Vs. The Sr. Inspector of Police & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Amin Solkar, for the Petitioner. Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED: AUGUST 6, 2010. P.C. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the respondent-State. The petitioner is the complainant, leading to Sessions Case No. 586 of 2008 and 817 of 2008, presently pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay. 2. We have perused the complaint dated 1st August, 2007 addressed through his advocate to the Commissioner of Police for Greater Bombay as well as the Dy. Commissioner of WP.481-10 - 2 - Police, Zone-1 and the Senior Inspector of Police Oshiwara- Jogeshwari, Mumbai. After the charge-sheet was filed, charge has been framed by the learned trial Judge on 20th June, 2009. The first charge is about criminal conspiracy – the offence punishable under S. 120-B of I.P. Code; second charge is for an offence punishable under S. 307 of the I. P. Code; third charge is for an offence punishable under S. 326 of the I. P. Code; whereas the fourth charge is for an offence punishable under S. 395 read with S. 397 of the I. P. Code. The D. C. P., Zone-IX Bandra (W), Mumbai has filed an affidavit in reply and has stated that the first charge-sheet was filed on 20-8-2008 against the two accused namely – Sudhir Poteri and Mahendra Sood, for the offences punishable under S. 326, 397 and 120-B read with S. 34 of the I. P. Code; whereas the supplementary charge-sheet dated 29th November 2008 for the same offences was filed against three other accused namely – Nagendra @ Baccha Soru Sahane, Dinesh @ Pudi Rupchand Chaudhari and Hemant @ Pintu Nepali Gulabsingh Ravat. 3. The petitioner had approached this Court in Writ WP.481-10 - 3 - Petition No. 1387 of 2009 and had prayed for further investigation under S. 173(8) Cr.P.C. This petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the trial Court raising the same contentions. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application, marked Exhibit-44, and prayed for further investigation. The said application was allowed on 30-9-2009. The affidavit-in-reply filed by the DCP states that after the learned trial Judge passed the order below application Exh. 44, further investigation was undertaken, statements of some additional witnesses were recorded but there was no material to file an additional charge-sheet. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the petitioner’s first complaint dated 1st August, 2007 as well as the report dated 22nd January, 2009, submitted by the Sr. Police Inspector, Oshivara Police Station to the trial Court (Exh. 64) and pointed out that the statements of the witnesses who support the angle of conspiracy as well as the muddemal articles like gold chain, etc. which have been set out in the report at Exh.64, have not been so submitted before the trial Court. WP.481-10 - 4 - 5. We direct the trial Court to ensure that the reported muddemal articles as set out therein and claimed to have been submitted before it are verified and are placed before it. In addition, if the petitioner’s wife and any of his employees or any third persons who were witnesses to the alleged incidence of 29th July, 2007 as well as 31st July, 2007, as set out in his complaint dated 1-8-2007 and are willing to give their statement, the same shall be recorded under S. 161 of Cr .P. C. by the Sr. Inspector, Oshivara Police Station and submitted to the trial Court in the on going trial along with the list of these additional witnesses. This exercise shall be done within 2 weeks from today, provided the petitioner takes these additional witnesses to the Oshivara Police Station for recording their statements within one week from today. 5. So far as the private complaint filed by the petitioner and registered as CC/48/Misc./2009 in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate 22nd Court, Andheri, Mumbai is concerned, the grievance of the petitioner, if any, will have to be addressed before the same Court at the very first instance and it WP.481-10 - 5 - will not be possible to look into the same in this petition. Hence, the writ petition is disposed off in the above terms. Sd/- Sd/- [ ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] [B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.]