( 1 ) crwp892.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 892 OF 2010 Santosh s/o. Jayram Jadhav .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Shri S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri K.G. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent/State. Shri S.S. Bora, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 to 8. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATED : 31.01.2011 P.C. :- 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioner prays for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3 to add offence punishable under sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, to the offence which is already registered vide Crime No. 137 of 2010 and to take appropriate action against respondent Nos. 4 to 8 (accused). Vide prayer clause (C) to ( 2 ) crwp892.10 the petition, the petitioner prays for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the transfer of investigation of Crime No. 137 of 2010 registered at Ambad Police Station, Ambad, District – Jalna, from respondent No.3 to any other competent and impartial officer. 2. It appears that on the basis of complaint an offence vide Crime No. 137 of 2010 came to be registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 338, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The grievance of the petitioner in this respect is that though the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code had been committed by the accused, yet the aforesaid crime has not been registered under sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon completion of the investigation, we are informed that the charge-sheet has already been presented before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. 3. In respect of addition of sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, according to us, it would be appropriate if the request thereof is made to the Trial Court ( 3 ) crwp892.10 at the time of framing of the charge, as the Trial Court, which is seized of the matter, upon hearing the Counsel would be framing the appropriate charge. Shri Jadhavar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us by the reference to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the accused and contends that the accused in para 8 of their affidavit-in-reply has stated that the charge-sheet had been filed on the date on which the affidavit is sworn i.e. on 22.11.2010. The charge-sheet has not been submitted before the Court. Shri Jadhavar also avers that the copy of the charge-sheet was available with the learned Counsel representing the accused in this petition before us. On the basis of this, it is urged before us that the investigation be transferred as the Investigating Officer appears hand in glove with the respondents/accused. 4. On the basis of erroneous instructions, learned A.P.P. had made wrong statement before us that the charge- sheet has been filed. Time was therefore sought by learned A.P.P. to obtain instructions as to when the charge-sheed has been filed. It appears that the charge-sheet ultimately came ( 4 ) crwp892.10 to be filed on 09.12.2010. Obviously, when the affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents, the charge-sheet had not been presented. Merely because learned Counsel for the accused was in possession of the copy of charge-sheet, no inference can be drawn of the Investigating Officer hand in glove with the accused and, therefore, the investigation was a doctored investigation. In any event, the charge-sheet has been filed and the petitioner has adequate remedy available in law in the Trial Court. In that light of the matter, the petition being devoid of substance is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [A.V. POTDAR,J.] [P.V. HARDAS,J.] snk/2011/JAN11/crwp892.10