1 1WP.2043-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2043 OF 2011 Shri Rajendra Narayan Shinde. ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and 12 others. ..Respondents. .......... Mr.Madhav Jamdar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs.M.H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for the State. .......... CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR AND P. D. KODE, JJ. DATED : 23rd AUGUST, 2011. P.C. 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of G. Sagar Suri and another vs. State of U.P. And others reported in 2000 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 513 [para-7]; and another decision in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and PPD 2 1WP.2043-11 others reported in (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 259 [paras-16, 23 & 60] would contend that even if the chargeshseet has been filed by the Investigating Officer before the concerned Court, the petitioner is free to pursue the relief claimed by the petitioner in this Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. read with Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, he submits that the petitioner be allowed to amend the Petition so as to also ask for further relief of quashing the chargesheet. 2. We have no difficulty in acceding to this request, but, we hope that the petitioner will realize that once the validity of the chargesheet is put in issue in the present Petition, it will not be open to the petitioner to go back to the trial Court for discharge at a later point of time. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would examine that position as well and take instructions of the petitioner in this behalf. 3. Our attention was invited to the different prayers sought by the petitioner in respect of different offences. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even that aspect will be considered by 3 1WP.2043-11 the petitioner and if, so advised, prayer clause will be amended suitably so as to avoid the argument of misjoinder of cause of action. Learned APP submits that as a matter of fact the reliefs claimed in prayer clause (a) have worked out. The petitioner may consider even that aspect of the matter. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the APP be directed to furnish copy of the chargesheet at the cost of the petitioner. We find force in the submission made by the learned APP that if the petitioner if, so advised, may make an application to the trial Court for furnishing copy of complete set of the chargesheet filed by the investigating officer in the concerned Court. If such application is filed, we hope and trust that the said Court shall furnish copy of the chargesheet along with its accompaniments expeditiously and in any case within 10 days from the date of submission of the application. 5. The petitioner is free to carry out amendment subject to what has been observed in the earlier part of this order. The amendment shall be carried out on or before 23rd September,2011 and amended copy of the Petition be served in the office of the 4 1WP.2043-11 learned Public Prosecutor within the same time, failing which the Petition shall be treated as dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court, as the petitioner has already been given one opportunity in terms of order dated 8th August, 2011. 6. Subject to above, list this matter on 30th September, 2011. (P. D. KODE, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)