1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.181 OF 2009 Nitin Gorakhnath Sartape ...Petitioner Vs. A.N.Roy, the Commissioner of Police & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr. Advocate i/b. Mr. S.R.Ganbavale, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. P.A.Pol, P.P with Mr. D.P.Adsule, A.P.P for the State, Respondent No.2 Mr.V.G.Pradhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.V.Marwadi, Advocate for Respondent No.3 CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & SMT.ROSHAN S. DALVI, JJ. DATED : 13TH AUGUST, 2009. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner, who is one of the Intervener in Writ Petition No.2473 of 2006. 2. This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the inquiry report submitted under Section 176(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court, Andheri on 11th August, 2008. The said report is objected by the Respondents and Interveners in 2 Writ Petition No.2473 of 2006, which is already heard by us and we have passed an order in the said Petition today directing the registration of an F.I.R, so as to investigate into the death of Ramnarayan Gupta. The said report is one of the materials we have considered and it is only an inquiry report. The investigation is required to be conducted by the Special Investigating Team, which we have directed to be formed under the leadership of Shri K.M. Prasanna, D.C.P. Mumbai City. The Special Investigating Team is required to proceed in the investigation entirely on the basis of the material, that will be placed before it in the form of the Petitioner’s complaint or as additional statement to be recorded. The said investigation is not going to be on the basis of the report submitted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and therefore, we do not find any reason to entertain this Petition. 3. The Petition is rejected. (SMT.ROSHAN S. DALVI, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)