The court upheld the investigation by the CBI and ruled that the death of the victim was a case of suicide, deprecating the repeated filing of proceedings by the petitioner for the same cause of action.

JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of learned Advocates for the parties herein, taken up for final hearing.

2. By this Criminal Writ Petition, Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“A. Call upon the records and proceedings of the Special Case No.83 of 2014 pending before the Learned Special Judge, (CBI) for Greater Bombay, Bombay;

B. Issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ and/or direction and/or order and thereby quash and set aside the impugned common Order passed below Exhibit 204 and 209 by the Learned Special Judge (CBI) for Greater Bombay at Bombay in Special Case No.83 of 2014, dated 16.09.2021;

C. Issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ and/or direction and/or order and thereby direct the Respondent to formulate a Special Investigation Team headed by its Director or Joint Director, for further investigation in to the cause of death of the victim;

D. Issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ and/or direction and/or order and thereby direct the Respondent No.2 to carry out the necessary further investigation in the case based upon the Legal Review Report dated 01.05.2019.”

3. On 22.06.2022, after hearing the Petitioner's Advocate, this Court passed the following Order:-

“The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that in this Petition the Petitioner is not pressing prayer Clause ‘A’ and ‘B’ that challenges the order passed by learned Special Judge and will independently press for reliefs in prayer Clause ‘C’ and ‘D’.

2. List the Petition under the caption “For Direction” on 29 June 2022.”

4. Prayer Clause ‘C' seeks a direction to the Respondents (to be read as “Respondent No.2”) to formulate a Special Investigation Team (for short “SIT”) for further investigation into the cause of death of the victim and prayer clause ‘D’ in furtherance thereof calls upon the Court to consider Legal Review Report dated 01.05.2019 for grant of the reliefs.

5. Before we advert to the facts of the present case, it will be apposite to state at the outset that by common Order dated 16.09.2021 passed by the learned Trial Court below Exhibit-204 and 209, Trial Court has not only considered the aforementioned two reliefs prayed for by the Petitioner but also adjudicated thereupon and passed a reasoned and cogent Order. The Order dated 16.09.2021, as seen, is challenged by Petitioner vide prayer clause 'B' above, however Petitioner has decided against pressing for the said relief. Respondent No.2 – CBI has filed its Affidavit-in-Reply dated 12.09.2022. Respondent No.4 - accused has also filed his Affidavit-in-Reply dated 26.08.2022. State is represented by learned APP.

6. We have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and with their assistance perused the entire record.

7. It is common ground by Respondents that trial before the learned Special Judge, (CBI) for Greater Bombay in Special Case No.83 of 2014 i.e. the Trial Court has commenced. It is seized of the matter. Across the bar, it is informed that evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses has been completed. Petitioner i.e. PW-16 being the prime witness is presently being cross examined before the Trial Court.

8. In the above background, relief for seeking further investigation after the final chargesheet has been filed and trial of the case is already in progress, should not necessarily be granted but there are certain issues which need to be highlighted while adjudicating the present Writ Petition. The necessity for highlighting these issues assumes importance and significance since the grounds on which the present Petition has been filed need to be answered. Petitioner has openly expressed her skepticism in the criminal justice system and the investigating agency of our country and hence we find it necessary to deal with the same.

Broadly speaking the bane of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is alleging that the trial has commenced before the Trial Court despite major