1 wp-225-2011 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 225 OF 2011 Girish Ghanashyamdas Lohana ...Petitioner Versus Shri Bhimanand N. Nalawade & ors. ...Respondents Mr.Umesh Mankapure for petitioner. Mr.A.S.Gadkari, APP for State. Mr.Kuldeep Patil wit Mr.Ranjeet Patil for Resp.nos.3 to 5. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. June 23, 2011. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr.Mankapure, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Gadkari, the learned APP appears for the State and Mr.Kuldeep Patil appears for respondent nos.3 to 5. 2. It appears on 27/9/2010 the petitioner had approached the Sangli 2 wp-225-2011 City Police Station and submitted a complaint. However, no FIR was registered by the said police station and, therefore, he approached this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.3087 of 2010. The Investigating Officer was present before the Court on 6/12/2010 and instructed the learned APP that he would proceed to register FIR and accordingly the FIR has been registered i.e. C.R.No.251 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 327, 427, 108 read with Section 34 of IPC against respondent nos.3 to 5 and three unknown persons. 3. In this petition filed in the second round under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for transfer of investigation in C.R.No. 251 of 2010 to any independent authority and direct the Respondent no.2 to suspend / dismiss respondent no.1 for the alleged illegal acts while dealing with the petitioner’s complaint. The petition further prays for cancellation of anticipatory bail and for further directions to respondent nos.1 and 2 to add the offence of theft / robbery in C.R.No.251 of 2010. 4. Mr.Gadkari, the learned APP states that the investigation in C.R.No.251 of 2010 has already been transferred from Sangli City Police Station to Vishrambaug Police Station on 19/3/2011 and Mr.Salokhe, 3 wp-225-2011 Police Inspector is the new Investigating Officer. The investigation is in progress. 5. Mr.Mankapure submitted that suitable action is warranted against respondent no.1 for his dereliction in performance of his duty. In any case, as noted earlier, respondent no.1 is no more the Investigating Officer after the same has been transferred to the Vishrambaug Police Station. We make it clear that the prayer for cancellation of bail cannot be considered in a writ petition and the petitioner may have his remedy somewhere else. 6. We are, therefore, satisfied that no further directions are required to be issued in this petition and hence the petition is rejected. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)