JUDGMENT - N. ARUMUGHAM, J.:---Rule. By consent of both the parties heard forthwith. 2. The petitioner has came forward with the prayer seeking direction to expedite the investigation into the case registered as C.R. No. 85 of 1995 of Jath Police Station, District Sangali without any delay and direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take proper action, if the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has not carried out investigation in the said C.R. No. 85 of 1995 satisfactorily. 3. The grievance of the petitioner seems to be that his premises were burgled out and all the materials kept therein has been stolen away by the culprits. He has lodged complaint with Jath Police Station who registered the same as C.R. No. 85 of 1995. However, since the investigation was being delayed and not carried out properly, according to the petitioner, he has came forward with this writ petition for the relief above referred. 4. Shri A.L. Kadam, Police Sub Inspector attached to Jath Police Station, District Sangli on the direction of this Court has filed sworn return stating inter alia that the complaint lodged by the petitioner being Journalist has been registered as C.R. No. 85 of 1995 for the offences under section 457, 380, 448 read with section 34 of I.P.C. The said offences has taken place on 16-7-1995 at about 2.00 a.m. in the early morning and the F.I.R. was registered at 16.50 hrs. He would say further that the pursuant to the registration of the said crime, during the investigation six persons by name (i) Gurumiya Sidderaya Sakri, (2) Manadevi Gurumiya Sakri, (3) Dhanaya Rajshekhar Cholle, (4) Shivaji M. Kalgi. (5) Vijay Veerbhadra Kalgi and (6) Shashikant Shivaji Kalgi were all arrested and they were in custody till 1st August, 1995. The investigation was done properly in this case in full swing and consequently Jath Police Station has filed chargesheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jath on 17th May, 1996 and that the said case is pending for trial even as on today. 5. The prayer itself shows that a direction was sought for to expedite investigation in C.R. No. 85 of 1995 as soon as possible without any delay. 5. The prayer itself shows that a direction was sought for to expedite investigation in C.R. No. 85 of 1995 as soon as possible without any delay. The return affidavit filed by the concerned Police Officer, shows that the whole investigation in this case was completed in the year 1996 and the trial of the case is pending before the Court of law. If that being so, we are fully constrained to say that the whole grievance of the petitioner has been duly met with and has been attended to by the respondent police in tracking the accused by laying down charges against them all before the Court of law and against the said accused persons trial is pending. At this juncture the petitioner cannot have any grievance further and that if at all anything is left over by the respondent police, it is always open for the petitioner to move the trial Court for further investigation or give such evidence which are necessary for projecting his grievance further so as to enable the trial Court to proceed under the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. Of course, it must be during the trial. It is for the said reasoning, under the circumstances, we feel that considering writ petition any more has become unnecessary and accordingly it has to be rejected. 6. In the result, for the foregoing reasonings, the present writ petition is dismissed and accordingly rule stands discharged. Petition dismissed. *****