KUNJBIHARI B AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. By the present petition the petitioner is seeking direction in the nature of writ of mandamus for thorough investigation in relation to C.R. No.232/03 which was lodged at the R.A.K. Marg Police Station, Mumbai, including the alleged involvement and/or the role played by Shri Sanjeev Kamble and Shri Amit Shah in the incident of alleged kidnapping of the petitioner's child.

(2.) When the matter came up for hearing, after having noted the facts of the case and the grounds on which the relief is sought for in the matter, the learned Public Prosecutor stated that consequent to conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the trial has almost come to its concluding stage, in the sense that the testimony of all the witnesses has been recorded and only the investigation officer remains to be examined.

(3.) Considering the nature of the grievance made in the petition and it being only related to the alleged lapse on the part of the investigation machinery in carrying out investigation pursuant to C.R. No.232/03 and the fact that on conclusion of the investigation already charge-sheet has been filed as well as even the recording of the evidence has been done and it is in the final stages, in our considered opinion, no purpose will be served in dealing with this matter in writ proceedings. Since the trial Court is already seized with the matter and the petitioner being one of the witnesses in the proceedings before the trial Court, nothing prevents the petitioner from bringing to the notice of the trial Court his grievance and lapses, if any, on the part of the investigation agency in the matter of investigation in relation to C.R. No.232/03 which was registered at the R.A.K. Marg Police Station and thereupon to seek necessary relief, if any, in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the trial Court. In our considered opinion, it would be a fit case, therefore, to dismiss this petition, leaving all the issues open including the remedy under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. to the petitioner.