1 cri-appi-6-11 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 6 OF 2008 Shri Madhav Janardan Bhandari .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents And Shri Raj K. Purohit .. Applicant (Intervener) Mr. Niteen Pradhan a/w Mr. Vivekanand Gupta and Ms. S.D. Khot for applicant. Mr. Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr. P. A. Pol, PP and Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. FEBRUARY 22, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Pradhan, the learned counsel for the applicant and 2 cri-appi-6-11 Mr. Ravi Kadam, the learned Advocate General for the State of Maharashtra. 2. This application prays for the following reliefs :- (a) That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the applicant to intervene as Party Respondent in the present PIL (Cri.) No. 6 of 2008. (b) Copy of the One Man Committee Report filed by Mr. Sudhakar Joshi together with Schedule be directed to be furnished to the applicant/Intervener. (c) Any other relief or an order in the interest of justice may kindly be passed in favour of the applicant. 3. Mr. Pradhan, in support of this application, also relied upon our order dated 14/6/2010 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3202 of 2009. We make it clear at the threshold that the said order in Criminal Writ 3 cri-appi-6-11 Petition No. 3202 of 2009 was passed by us while making it clear that Criminal Writ Petition No. 3202 of 2009 will be considered only for the relief of directions to the competent authority to proceed against the concerned IPS officer departmentally and though it is not mentioned in the order, we had made it clear to the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no case made out to direct registration of a crime against the said officer. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the IPS officer had consented for a judicial enquiry and resultantly, the order dated 14/6/2010 came to be passed. Reliance on the said order is, therefore, misplaced. 4. By a separate order passed today in Criminal PIL No. 6 of 2008, we have directed the CBI to register an FIR against some of the Government officers as well as the present applicant, based on the One Man Committee report and the Committee was constituted by the Government of Maharashtra. The right of hearing of an accused in a criminal complaint is well settled in a series of judgments by the Supreme Court and to name a few are, State of Haryana and ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and ors. [AIR 1992 SC 604] and the Union of India and anr. vs. W.N. Chadha [AIR 1993 S1082]. An accused is not entitled to an opportunity of hearing at the stage when the investigation is in progress. 4 cri-appi-6-11 5. So far as the copy of the report is concerned, if and when the final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. is submitted by the investigating agency in the competent court, the accused is entitled to have the copies of all the record/documents referred to in the charge-sheet. 6. Hence, the application is rejected. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)