- (1.)HEARD Mr. Naik and Mr. Kate, the learned Counsel for the respective petitioners. Mr. Pol, the learned Public Prosecutor appears for the State of Maharashtra.
(2.)'' The petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition no.3011 of 2010 are the accused in CR no.7 of 2010 registered with the Mahabaleshwar Police station on 20.2.2010, on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent no.2 i.e. Robert J. Moses, who is the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.213 of 2011. In Criminal Writ Petition no.213 of 2011, the petitioner prays for transfer of investigation in CR nos.5 and 7 of 2010 registered with the Mahabaleshwar Police Station.
'' There is no dispute that CR nos.5 and 7 of 2010 arose from the very same incident. CR no.5 of 2010 is based on the complaint lodged, at the first instance, by the gardener of the subject bungalow, and CR no.7 of 2010 has been registered on the basis of the complaint subsequently filed by Shri Robert J. Moses.

'' In Criminal Writ Petition no.3011 of 2010, it is mainly contended that there could not have been two separate CRs for the very same incident, and therefore, the subsequent CR no.7 of 2010 should be quashed and set aside.

(3.)'' In our view, Criminal Writ Petition no.3011 of 2010 could not have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. when it is for quashing of CR, and it has also been seen that because the Petition was filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, it came to be placed before the Single Bench. We direct the Registrar (Judicial) to ensure that the Petitions for quashment are placed before the Division Bench or Single Bench based solely on the reliefs prayed for, and if the Petition prays for quashing of CR/FIR, it must be placed before the Division Bench notwithstanding that it is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and if the Petition prays for quashing of criminal proceedings pending before the court below, it ought to be listed before the Single Bench.
'' Mr. Pol, on the basis of written instructions he has received from the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Satara vide his letter dated 16.7.2011, stated before us that respondent no.3 in Criminal Writ Petition no.213 of 2011 has been transferred to Kolhapur on 10.6.2011 and respondent no.4 has been transferred to Pune in May 2011. As of now both the officers are not at Mahabaleshwar. Hence, in this changed circumstances, the prayer made in Criminal Writ Petition no.213 of 2011 to transfer the investigation need not be considered. Affidavit-in-reply filed by Shri Vitthal Jadhav, Superintendent of Police, Satara in Criminal Writ Petition no.213 of 2011 states that the investigation in CR no.7 of 2010 was transferred to the local crime branch as per the direction of the Additional Superintendent of Police vide station diary entry no.2 dated 20.2.2010, and the investigation of CR no.5 of 2010 was also transferred to respondent no.3 by the Additional Superintendent of Police. However, as respondent no.3 has been transferred, the charge has been given to Shri Ulhas Deshmukh, Dy. S.P. It has also been assured to us that CR Nos.5 and 7 of 2010 will be clubbed and a common final report shall be submitted. Therefore, the prayer made in Criminal Writ Petition no.3011 of 2010 to quash CR no.7 of 2010 also would not survive. The written report dated 16.7.2011 further states that if these Petitions are disposed off, the final reports in CR no.5 of 2010 as well as CR no.6 of 2010 will be submitted within three weeks to the appropriate court.