1 (crim wp 2689 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2689 OF 2008 Abdul Kadar Shaikh ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.H.R. Sharma for Petitioner Mrs.M.R. Tidake -APP for State Smt. Archana Khan for Respondent No.3 -Absent. ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 1ST SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Trial Court has rejected the application filed by the Investigating Officer seeking a formal permission of the Learned Magistrate for further investigation after the chargesheet was filed and this application was rejected by the Trial Court. 3. Brief facts are that the Petitioner is the Original-Complainant. He had filed the complaint for the offence punishable under sections 420, 448, 452, 2 (crim wp 2689 of 2010) 464, 465, 468, 474, 114 of the Indian Penal Code. An order was passed by the Learned Magistrate, directing the police to make an investigation under section 156 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, an FIR was registered and chargesheet was filed. When the Original Complainant- Petitioner herein went through the chargesheet, he realised that the specimen signature of the Accused was not taken by the Investigating Officer. He, therefore, filed an application before the Learned Magistrate, requesting the Court to grant permission to the Investigating Officer to carry out further investigation. This application, however, was rejected on the ground that the Petitioner did not have locus to file this application. Thereafter, an application was filed by the Investigating Officer seeking permission to carry out the further investigation under section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C.. The Learned Magistrate dismissed this application on the ground that in view of the the dismissal of the earlier application filed by the Original Complainant, no orders to be passed on the present application. 4. None appears on behalf of the Accused, though they are served. Reply also has been filed on behalf of the Accused. The settled position in law is that after the chargesheet is filed, the Investigating 3 (crim wp 2689 of 2010) Officer can carry out further investigation and for that purpose, even prior permission of the Magistrate is not necessary but as held by the Apex Court in number of cases that as courtesy to the Court, a formal application has to be made to the Learned Magistrate. 5. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer filed that application in which it was specifically mentioned that the specimen signature of the accused was not taken and that the said signature was to be sent to the hand-writing experts for his opinion for proving the offence of forgery against the accused. Surprisingly, the Learned Magistrate rejected the said application. In my view, the Trial Court has committed patent error which is apparent on the face of record and contrary to the settled position of law. Petition, therefore, is allowed. 6. The order dated 2.1.2008 passed by the Learned Magistrate and confirmed by the Sessions Court by order dated 17.6.2008 is quashed and set aside. The Investigating Officer is directed to investigate the matter and filed a supplementary chargesheet. The said investigation may be carried out by Nirmal Nagar Police Station. 4 (crim wp 2689 of 2010) 7. On the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of. The Senior Police Station may assign the said investigation to any other Investigating Officer since the original officer is transferred. (V.M. KANADE J.)