1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITON NO. 1 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 364 OF 2006 High Court on its Motion ...Petitioner Versus P.S. Raut, Deputy Superintendent of Police, State C.I.D. ... Respondent Mr. M.S. Mohite for Contemner Mr. S.R. Borulkar, Public Prosecutor, for the State. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and A.P. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE: APRIL 15, 2008 P.C.:- We have heard the learned counsel for the original petitioner, the alleged contemner, and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Rule on contempt. By consent, the Rule is taken up for hearing. 3. There were two cases pending investigation before the police, C.Rs. No. 131 and 130 of 2002. When the matter came up for hearing 2 on 24th August, 2006, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, Shri P.S. Raut, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, had submitted to the Court that the investigations in both the matters were completed, and formality of filing the charge-sheets had remained. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions from Shri Raut, who was also present in the Court at that time, had submitted that the charge-sheets would be filed on 11th September, 2006 by 3 p.m. The writ petitioner, on this submission being made, had withdrawn from the Writ Petition. 4. Thereafter, it was found that charge-sheet had been filed in one of the C.Rs., i.e., C.R. No. 131 of 2002 , which was against the writ petitioner, and “B” Summary Report had been filed in respect of C.R. No. 130 of 2002, which had been filed by the writ petitioner. 5. When the Court noted this aspect of the matter, it decided to issue notice for contempt to Shri P.S. Raut, the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The counters have been filed. Shri Raut has also placed himself before the mercy of this Court by tendering an unqualified 3 apology. By way of explanation, it had been stated that there was some gap of communication between the Public Prosecutor's Office and the DSP' s Office and it had been stated that charge-sheets would be filed in both the cases. Shri Raut has further clarified that, as a matter of fact, he was not the person who had investigated the matter in the first instance, but the matter had been investigated by one of his predecessors. 6. During the pendency of this Contempt Petition, the Superintendent of Police was directed to re-investigate the matter, C.R. No. 130 of 2002, so that the Court would ensure that the fair investigation had been done in the matter. This investigation is also completed, and we have seen the summary report, which has been filed by the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. It appears that the investigation has been done, but we do not want to comment on the alleged summary, because the original complainant may be aggrieved of it, and he may approach the Magistrate against the report, but for the purpose of contempt, we feel 4 that the investigation has been done, and the results of earlier investigation and the later investigation by a Superintendent of Police are almost the same. 8. We, therefore, discharge the Rule on contempt issued against Shri Raut. The matter stands closed, as far as contempt is concerned. However, we want to keep on record that we have not gone into the question of merit of the investigation conducted by the police as far as C.R. No. 130 of 2002 is concerned; and if the complainant takes any remedy before any authority or any Court, that authority or Court shall decide the matter independently. BILAL NAZKI, J. A.P. DESHPANDE, J.