1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2154 OF 2011 Jayram Ganpat Devlikar and others Petitioners versus State of Maharashtra and others Respondents Shri S.V.Marwadi a/w Ms.K.H.Rajani for petitioners. Shri D.P.Adsule, APP for State. Mr.Sharif Shaikh for original complainant. Mr.P.N.Nikam, PSI of Bhivandi Taluka Police Station present. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATE : 24th August 2011 PC : 1. The grievance in this petition is that the Investigating Officer is not maintaining requisite case diary and/or not making entries therein. Further, although statement of the Sarpanch was recorded, it was not part of the record before the Magistrate along with the case diary. For that reason the petitioners had moved the Magistrate by way of an application in CR No.1-99/2011 praying for a direction against the Investigating Officer or the senior officers of Police attached to Bhivandi Taluka Police Station to investigate all aspects of the matter including the material brought to his notice by the accused persons. The other relief claimed in the said application was to transfer the Investigating Officer to some other Police Station and the investigation of the case be entrusted to another competent Police Officer. 2 2. It is not in dispute that the concerned Court has passed a speaking order on the said application on 8th August 2011. Although the said order is part of the paper book, the correctness thereof has not been challenged in the present writ petition or before any other Court of competent jurisdiction. As regards the grievance of the petitioners, the learned APP on instructions states that each of the apprehensions of the petitioners is misplaced. As a matter of fact, whatever material was pointed out by the petitioners on the issues raised by the petitioners, has already been examined by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer is continuing with the investigation of the case in the right earnest and on all aspects of the issues before him. We have no reason to doubt the said statement of the Investigating Officer. Besides the investigation will be monitored by the concerned Court and if there is any shortcoming in the investigation, it is open to the concerned Court to issue appropriate directions. From the material on record it is not possible to conclude that the Investigating Officer is acting biased against the petitioner or high handedly. If there are some omissions committed by the Investigating Officer, that can be corrected during the process of investigation and before filing of the police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the concerned Court. Even thereafter it is always open to the Investigating Officer to undertake further investigation if the fact situation so warrants. 3. Since assurance is given by the Investigating Officer who is present in the Court that he would examine all aspects of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, states that the petitioners will not pursue present remedy and liberty may be granted to them to take recourse to other appropriate measures/remedy as may be available to the petitioners in law. Needless to observe that if 3 any grievance is made by the petitioners before the concerned Magistrate, the same will be examined in accordance with law and well established legal principles. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent submitted that he would like to file affidavit and place on record certain matters. However, we do not think it necessary to adjourn the matter for that purpose in the light of what has been stated above. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)