Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Appeal; Appellant Should Have Used CrPC Remedies Instead of Writ Petition.

The SC upheld the HC's decision, dismissing the appellant's writ petition. The Court determined that the appellant should have pursued remedies under the CrPC rather than filing a writ application. The appellant's requests for transferring the investigation, expeditious trial, discharge of accused, disciplinary actions, and costs were all denied, and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer of investigation to an impartial agency.
2. Expeditious trial and disposal of Sessions Case.
3. Discharge of accused and commitment of other respondents for trial.
4. Disciplinary action against judicial and police officers.
5. Costs and other orders in the interest of justice.

Summary:

1. Transfer of Investigation to an Impartial Agency:
The appellant sought a writ of mandamus to transfer the investigation of Cr. No. 257/87 from State CID to another impartial agency. The High Court dismissed this request, noting that the case was already committed to the Sessions Court, Palghar, and thus, there was no question of transferring the investigation to another agency.

2. Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Sessions Case:
The appellant requested the Sessions Judge, Palghar, to try and dispose of Sessions Case No. 62/89 within three months. The High Court found no merit in this request as the case was already pending before the Sessions Court.

3. Discharge of Accused and Commitment of Other Respondents for Trial:
The appellant sought the discharge of four adivasi accused and the commitment of respondent Nos. 2 to 9 for trial. The High Court noted that the matter had been extensively reviewed by various courts, and the learned J.M.F.C. Vasai had directed further investigation as per the directions given.

4. Disciplinary Action Against Judicial and Police Officers:
The appellant alleged incompetence and unfairness by the Investigating Officers and some judicial officers. The High Court found no basis for these allegations, noting that the judicial officers acted within the four corners of the law.

5. Costs and Other Orders in the Interest of Justice:
The appellant sought costs and any other orders deemed fit in the interest of justice. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the appellant had unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings and should have availed the remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, instead of filing a writ petition.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order, stating that the writ application was not the proper remedy. The appellant should have availed the remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure before approaching the High Court. The appeal was dismissed.

---