1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No. 372/2011 Rajendra Vishwanath Choudhry vs. State of Maharashtra, through Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 and others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mr. M.P.Lala, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. B.P.Maldhure, APP for respondents 1 to 3. CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.B.DESHMUKH,JJ DATE : 9.9.2011 This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which, the petitioner prays that the respondents 2 and 3 be directed to re-investigate the Crime No. 215/2009 registered at Gittikhadan Police Station and also to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to complete further investigation. The petitioner has also prayed for grant of ad interim relief. It, thus, appears that the principal relief, which is sought for in this petition, is for re-investigation of the Crime No. 215/2009, in respect of which a charge sheet has been filed some time in October, 2010. The learned Magistrate is already seized of the offence. The petitioner claims that respondent no.4 has not been 2` joined as accused by the police while submitting charge sheet though prima facie material is disclosed against respondent no.4 in respect of the involvement of respondent no.4 in the commission of the offence. 2. In response to the notice issued by this court, the respondent no.2 has filed an affidavit-in-reply and in the affidavit-in-reply it is stated that investigation was carried out in respect of the complicity of respondent no.4 in the commission of the offence and the Investigating Officer has reached to a conclusion that involvement of the respondent no.4, in the commission of the offence, has not been spelled out on the basis of the material collected during the investigation. It is, therefore, submitted that the charge sheet against respondent no.4 has not been filed. 3. We are informed that the trial court is already seized with the matter and the case is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court no.10 at Nagpur. If the respondent no.4 has not been joined as an accused though there is material available and collected during the investigation, the trial court has wide powers under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to join respondent no.4 as an accused in the case. In any event, since the Magistrate is already seized with the offence and is deciding the trial, we refrain from making any observations on merit much 3` less directing the police to re-investigate. The question of re-investigation had also been examined by the investigating agency and it had come to a conclusion that re-investigation or additional investigation is not warranted by the facts of the present case. According to us, in the light of the fact that investigation had been carried out against respondent no.4 to determine the complicity of respondent no.4 in the commission of the offence and investigating officer had reached to a conclusion that no involvement of respondent no.4 was disclosed in the said crime, according to us, no case for directing re-investigation is made out. The petitioner may resort to the remedies available to the petitioner in law, if the petitioner is aggrieved by non joining of respondent no.4 as an accused. 4. In the light of the aforesaid facts, since we are not inclined to interfere in the present petition and this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE patle 4`