1 wp-279.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 279 OF 2011 Mr.Vasant Sakharam Kashivale. ... Petitioner. V/s. Superintendent of Police & others. ... Respondents. Dnyaneshwar Deshmukh for the petitioner. K.V.Saste, APP for the respondent-State. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 23rd February 2011. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Learned A.P.P., on instruction, states that charge-sheet has already been filed on 17th December, 2009 in C.R.No.115/2008 and in C.R.No.37/2009. This fact is not stated in the writ petition. Besides this, the grievance made in the petition, even if taken as it is, it is only one of deficiencies in the 2 wp-279.11 investigation by the present investigating officer. The said grievance can be made before the court where the charge-sheet has already been filed. The said court can decide whether further investigation needs to be done or whether the investigation already done is deficient so as to direct the investigating officer to take corrective measures. The petitioner is free to explore that remedy, if so advised. We make it clear that the said proceeding will be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. This Court has not expressed any opinion that the concerned Court shall be obliged to issue direction to the investigating officer even if no case is made out by the petitioner justifying that direction. 3. During the course of argument, counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the contents of the legal notice sent by Advocate Mrs.Chaya P. Bhadkamkar which refers to the fact asserted by Shri Vasant Sakharam Kashivale that during the meeting between the parties the accused expressed their inability to return the gold ornaments on the ground that the same have been appropriated by the police officers investigating the case. However, this allegation is not specifically taken in the writ petition. Even if the said legal notice is annexed to the petition that fact ought to have been asserted by 3 wp-279.11 the petitioner on affidavit. The petition is completely silent about the said allegation. In the circumstances, there is no substance in the writ petition. The same is disposed with liberty to take recourse to the other appropriate remedy. 4. We have also noticed interesting position from the legal notice (Exh.I). It has been sent by Advocate Mrs.Chaya P. Bhadkamkar to the Police Inspector, Assistant Police Inspector, and Police Nayab of the concerned police station. The letterhead, however, indicates that the said Advocate is an Additional Public Prosecutor and Government Pleader. We have brought this position to the notice of the Public Prosecutor who has assured us to convey the same to the Secretary, Law Department so that the said aspect will be inquired into and proceeded in accordance with law. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)