JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-The appellant calls in question legality of the order passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the Criminal Writ Petition No. 1013 of 1997 filed by the appellant. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the "Constitution") was filed with the following prayers:

"To call for record and proceedings of Sessions Case No. 62/89 in Cr. No. 257/87 pending before J.M.F.C. Vasai for consideration.

To issue writ of mandamus and not any other writ, order or direction to transfer the investigation of Cr.No. 257/87 from State CID to any other impartial investigating agency and/or to Senior P.I. Manickpur Police Station, Vasai under the supervision of Superintendent of Police, Thane (Rural).

To issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus calling upon the Sessions Judge, Palghar to try and dispose of Sessions Case No. 62/89 within 3 months from the date of committing the case of Sessions Court.

To direct the learned J.M.F.C. Vasai to discharge the four adivasis accused in the Sessions Case No. 303/89 and commit the present Respondent Nos. 2 to 9 to Sessions Court for trial.

If it is found just and proper the concerned authorities may be directed to take disciplinary action against the judicial and police officer to avoid the miscarriage of justice in future.

Petitioner may be awarded the costs of this petition.

To pass any other order which Your Lordship deem fit in the interest of justice."

2. The High Court had originally issued notice before admission to the Inspector of Police State CID, who filed an affidavit on 10th March, 1998. Appellant s grievance primarily was that the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 herein (who were the respondents before the High Court in the Writ Petition) had allegedly killed his brother and caused grievous injuries to his nephew. The first information report in this regard was registered on 29.6.1987 bearing C.R.No. 257 of 1987. The High Court noted that the case had been committed under orders passed by learned Magistrate and was pending in the Court of Sessions, Palghar as Sessions Case No. 303 of 1989. The High Court, therefore, was of the view that when the case was pending before the Sessions Court, there was no question of transferring investigation to some other agency. It also noticed that C.R.No. 258 of 1987 of the Vasai Police Station where the appellant figured as an accused is the subject matter of Criminal Case No. 32 of 1990 pending before the Learned J.M.F.C Vasai, pursuant to which charge sheet was filed. In that view of the matter the High Court found that there was no scope for entertaining the grievances as raised by the appellant.

3. In the present Appeal the appellant has made serious allegations about the competence and fairness of not only the Investigating Officers but also some of the judicial officers. It appears that originally the investigating agency had filed a petition for closing the matter pursuant to the FIR lodged by the appellant. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasai had passed orders accepting the prayer made by the Police Commissioner, C.I.D. Bombay Division to release the present respondent Nos. 2 to 9 as per the provisions of the Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, (in short the Code ). The order was assailed in revision before the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, who by order dated 19th February, 1996, in Criminal Revision Application No. 103 of 1999, set aside the order. Direction was given to the learned Magistrate to refer the matter to the concerned Investigating Officer for further investigation under sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Code. Pursuant to the order several proceedings in several courts have taken place and the matter is travelling from one court to another. Learned J.M.F.C. Vasai on 23.6.1997 directed the investigating officer to further investigate as per the directions given. It