criappln5366.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5366 OF 2010 Satish s/o Raghunath Pate .. APPLICANT VERSUS State of Maharashtra & another .. RESPONDENTS Mr. D.B. Thoke, advocate holding for Mr. N.L. Choudhari, advocate for the applicant. Mr. K.B. Choudhari, APP for the State. ===== CORAM : R.M. BORDE VACATION JUDGE DATE : 28 th DECEMBER 2010 PER COURT : 1 The learned Magistrate in exercise of powers under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on receipt of the complaint and police report, directed remand of the accused to police custody for 10 days for facilitating further investigation in the matter. 2 On perusal of the FIR and the remand report, I do not find any perversity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. It is a discretion criappln5366.10 2 vested in the Magistrate to remand the accused produced before him in police custody to facilitate further investigation by the police in the matter. In an extremely rarest of the rare case interference in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court is permissible. Another aspect of the matter is that the applicant has made the learned Magistrate as party in personal capacity. This court deprecates such a practice on the part of the litigant. If such practice is permitted, it would give wrong signal and will have an adverse effect on the justice delivery system. I do not find any merit in the application. Application stands rejected. ( R. M. BORDE ) VACATION JUDGE dyb