JUDGMENT :

(Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J.)

1. The present petition has been fled seeking a writ of mandamus inter alia to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate for taking cognizance of the complaint fled by the Petitioners with the Mumbai Police and for purposes of taking investigation in their hands. The complaint is stated to have been sent by the Petitioners through email to the Commissioner of Police Mumbai, as also the DCP, Economic Offences Wing (EOW) on 11th July, 2022 against Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are stated to have been the office bearers of the political party ‘Shivsena’. Respondent No. 5 is also stated to have been the Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra for a period of 30/31 months, whereas Respondent No. 6 is stated to have been a minister in his cabinet. It is alleged that the complaint fled with the Mumbai Police although forwarded on the same date to the EOW, had not resulted in any investigation into the allegations levelled against the said Respondents.

2. Insofar as the allegations are concerned, the Petitioners state that the said Respondents have committed serious economic offences and offences of corruption, despite which Respondent No. 4 i.e. the Police Commissioner, Mumbai had avoided to take legal action against the said Respondents on account of heavy political pressure. In the petition, it is further alleged that Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 have assets, which are otherwise disproportionate to their known sources of income. The assets are stated to be Benami Transactions. It is alleged that the said Respondents run periodicals by the name ‘Marmik’ and ‘Saamna’ which are not subjected to the audit bureau of circulation and that during the Corona period, while the entire print media in India was facing heavy losses, the company, ‘Prabodhan Prakashan Private Limited’ practically owned by Thackeray family, had shown a turnover of Rs.42 crores and a book profit of Rs.11.5 crores.

3. In the backdrop of the aforementioned facts it is prayed that not only should cognizance be taken on the complaint fled by the Petitioners and further that the same should be monitored by this Court. Reliance was placed upon Param Bir Singh V/s. The State of Maharashtra to support the proposition that this Court in the aforementioned case had exercised the writ jurisdiction and referred the matter to the CBI.

4. Mr. Aspi Chinoy, learned Senior Counsel for the private Respondents on the other hand urged that if at all the Petitioners had any grievance that no action was being taken on the complaint fled by the Petitioners by the concerned agencies and investigation was not being conducted then the right remedy for the Petitioners was to approach the Magistrate concerned in terms of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Reliance in this regard was placed by Mr. Chinoy upon the judgment in the case of Sakiri Vasu V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2008) 2 SCC 409.

It was next contended by Mr. Chinoy that while courts have exercised the extraordinary writ jurisdiction relating to investigations in criminal cases, yet courts do not order initiation of an investigation. Reference was also made to Kunga Nima Lepcha & others V/s. State of Sikkim & others, (2010) 4 SCC 513, which was subsequently followed in the case of State of Jharkhand V/s. Shiv Shankar Sharma and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1541.

5. We have heard Petitioner No. 1 appearing in-person as also learned Counsel for the Respondents.

6. At the very outset we may point out that after we had heard the matter and reserved the same for judgment, Ms A. S. Pai, learned Public Prosecutor informed us that a preliminary inquiry had been initiated by the EOW on the complaint which had been forwarded. This statement was made in the presence of the Petitioners, who however did not express any desire to withdraw the petition and, therefore, we have to proceed to decide the issues that arise in the present