1 wp1714.10 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1714 OF 2010 Jayeshkumar G. Sheth & Anr. ....Petitioners. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ....Respondents Mr. Rahul S. Kate a/w. Mr. Karan Bhosale for petitioners. Ms. S.V.Gajare, APP for Respondent-State. Ms. Susan Abraham for Respondent No.3. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED:- OCTOBER 11, 2010. P.C. 1. The principal relief claimed in this Petition is for quashing of MCR No.3 of 2006 registered o 13th September, 2006. It is not in dispute that chargesheet has already been filed by the local police after completion of investigation. If it is so, the Petitioners may be free to take recourse to such other appropriate remedy, as may be advised, which will be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. We are of the view that considering the fact that the relief claimed by the Petitioners cannot be answered merely on the basis of the complaint, which has been registered as FIR. Initially, the complainant moved the concerned Magistrate, in which proceedings, direction was issued to the 2 wp1714.10 local police to register FIR. The fact remains that FIR is registered and investigation has been completed. Besides, the complaint and/or FIR, further material has come on record during the investigation, which is part of the chargesheet filed before the lower Court. The efficacy of that material will have to be considered by the appropriate court at the relevant time. We express no opinion in that regard. 2. As aforesaid, therefore, the Petitioners are free to take recourse to such other remedy, as may be permissible by law. All questions on merits raised in the present Petition, as also available to the private parties in the pending criminal proceedings are kept open, to be considered on its own merits. 3. According to the Petitioners, the Petitioners are not in a position to travel to India to submit to the jurisdiction and personally appear before the concerned court. That is on account of the fact that because of the registration of the criminal case against them, their passport is not renewed by the concerned Authority. In absence of renewal of the passport, they are not able to travel to India. Secondly, the son of the Petitioner No.1 is mentally retarded and needs continuous care. In this backdrop, it is submitted that the Petitioners be allowed to make suitable application before the trial Court to dispense with their 3 wp1714.10 appearance until hearing of the discharge application. That aspect will have to be considered by the trial Court on its own merits in accordance with. We express no opinion in that behalf. 4. It was submitted that the application for renewal of passport is made. Direction be issued to the Authority to favourably consider the same. We do not think it necessary to enter into this controversy. If such application has been made, the same will be considered on its own merits in accordance with law. 5. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners be allowed to withdraw this Petition with liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedy in the light of the observations made earlier. 6. Accordingly, Petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)