1 123609 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY vgm CRIMINAL APELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1236 OF 2009 Rajeev Atmaram Prabhu & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Madhav Jamdar for the Petitioners Mr. P.A. Pol, P.P., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 8 Mr. Sanjeev Kadam with Mr. Vivek Salunke for Respondent No. 4 Mr. Vilas Tapkir for Respondent No. 5 Mr. Chandrakant Yadav for Respondent No. 6 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE: DECEMBER 21, 2011 P.C.:- Considering the order dated 7th July, 2011, it is obvious that what survives for consideration is only prayer clause (E) of the petition. Prayer clause (E) reads thus:- “(E) By an appropriate writ, order or direction of this Hon’ble Court, the Respondent No.1 – State of Maharashtra be directed to pay compensation as deemed fit and proper by 2 123609 this Hon’ble Court to the Petitioners and the same be recovered from Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and other concerned Police officials.” As a result, the issue relating to compensation alone can be considered in this pending petition. 2. The counsel for the petitioners, however, was at pains to point out that vide earlier orders, the Court called upon the investigating agency to disclose the status of investigation. That does not mean that the reliefs, which are already disposed of in terms of earlier orders, have been revived by this Court. We would reiterate the position sated in order dated 7th July, 2011 that the only relief surviving in this petition is prayer clause (E), which is reproduced hitherto. So far as the claim of compensation is concerned, that would be dependent on the finding to be recorded by the concerned criminal Court accepting or rejecting the allegations made by the petitioners, which is the basis for the criminal case initiated against the named and unnamed persons. In the event the prosecution substantiates the case of the complainant, we have no manner of doubt that the concerned criminal Court would issue appropriate order regarding the compensation to be paid to the complainant. In other words, the issue of compensation can be 3 123609 considered in the pending criminal case registered on the basis of complaint made on 29th December, 2008. All questions in that behalf are left open. 3. In the event the petitioners have any grievance regarding the manner in which the investigation is being handled by the S.I.T. appointed under the orders of this Court, they are free to take up those issues by way of substantive petition. If such petition is filed, the same will be considered on its own merits. 4. This petition is disposed of, with the above observations. R.G. KETKAR, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.