Judgment:- A.P. Lavande, J. Heard Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General for respondents no.1, 4, 7 and 8. None appears on behalf of the other respondents. 2. By this petition, the petitioner had sought the following reliefs : (a) a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India commanding respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 to give adequate protection to the petitioner, his caretakers, property Boroda Molios and the buildings situate within the compound, namely the house, chapel, residence meant for the priest, outhouses, garages, etc. and the fish pond in the property Hortabhat/ Batio next to Boroda Molios by Police other than Bicholim Police. (b) an order directing the CBI to investigate into the offences complained of by the petitioner in various complaints lodged by the petitioner to the Goa Police and referred to in the petition. (c) for an order directing respondents no.1, 2 and 3 to give adequate protection to the petitioner, his caretakers, his property Boroda Molios, the house, chapel, residence for priest, out houses, garage, etc. situate in the compound therein, the fish pond in property Hortabhat/ Batio pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition. 3. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is as under : The petitioner is successor to the estate of the late Count of Mayem, Dom Jose Joaquim de Noronha, in terms of Public Will dated 19/12/1996. Most of the properties ofthe estate were declared to be evacuee properties under the Goa Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1964 and continue to vest in management of custodian. The property 'Boroda Molios' situated at village Mayem excluding the chapel and residence of the priest attached thereto, was allotted to Mrs. Maria Elsa Wolfango Silva in the Inventory Proceedings no.77/1969 and thereafter passed to the petitioner under the aforesaid will. The said property is not evacuee property. Mrs. Maria Elsa and her husband were living in the house situated therein until they expired on 22/11/1997 and 25/08/1987 respectively. The petitioner is nephew of Maria Elsa and has been residing in the said house from 1980. There is compound wall around the house and an area admeasuring 30000 square metres is within the compound and the house has plinth area of 700 square metres. The petitioner is nephew of Maria Elsa and has been residing in the said house from 1980. There is compound wall around the house and an area admeasuring 30000 square metres is within the compound and the house has plinth area of 700 square metres. Besides the house, there is chapel, residence meant for priests, two garages, one out house, a paddy field and different types of trees. It is further the case of the petitioner that although property 'Boroda Molios' is not an evacuee property, custodian of evacuee property took the possession of the portion of the said property outside the compound of the said house and of the priests' residence and one Mariano Fernandes is in possession of the said house and continues to reside defying the Court order. 4. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 02/04/2001, one Meghnath Tari came to the front of his house with danda and threatened to kill the petitioner and other persons in the house and at that time, about 15 persons were waiting outside the house with dandas. The petitioner complained to Bicholim Police on 03/04/2001, but no action was taken. Again on 04/04/2001 at about 3.30 p.m., said Tari again trespassed into the compound and the petitioner was not present. Said Tari assaulted and molested caretaker Andresa alias Candida D'Souza. Said Tari was apprehended by father and sister of Andresa and telephonically informed police who came and arrested Tari and Andresa went to Bicholim Police Station to lodge the complaint. She saw all the members of Mayem Nagrik Kruti Samiti directing ASI how to process the said complaint. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 04/04/2001 the police party raided the house of the petitioner at midnight and ransacked it and arrested Andresa, Gloria and Joao and locked them in Police Station. On 08/04/2001, the petitioner wrote to the Director General of Police about the raid at his house and threat to his security. No action was taken. Thereafter, from time to time, the members of Mayem Nagrik Kruti Samiti trespassed in the property of the petitioner and the petitioner lodged the complaints dated 29/04/2001, 30/04/2001, 02/05/2001, 06/05/2001 and 17/05/2001. On 08/04/2001, the petitioner wrote to the Director General of Police about the raid at his house and threat to his security. No action was taken. Thereafter, from time to time, the members of Mayem Nagrik Kruti Samiti trespassed in the property of the petitioner and the petitioner lodged the complaints dated 29/04/2001, 30/04/2001, 02/05/2001, 06/05/2001 and 17/05/2001. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 20/08/2000, a mob of about 200 people instigated by Shri Prakash Phadte and led by Samiti demolished the compound wall of the petitioner's house and chapel with stones and caused extreme damage. The police lodged report at the police station on the same day. The police made show of arresting few persons and released them after short time. Police Bandobast was maintained around the petitioner's compound for about 5 months beginning from 21/08/2000 and ending on 10/01/2001. It is further the case of the petitioner that from 04/04/2001, he has been staying away from Mayem and the caretakers of the petitioner continue to hold on to the house and the property. 5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, by order dated 21/01/2002 the petition was disposed of in the following terms: “After hearing learned advocates for the respective parties for sometime, learned Advocate General on behalf of respondents no.1 to 4, states that the State will refer all the complaints mentioned in the petition to the State C.I.D. for investigation within a week from today. 2. We accept the statement and direct the State C.I.D. to immediately commence investigation and complete the same within a period of three months from today and submit a report to this Court immediately thereafter. It is clarified that the complaint dated 21st February, 2000, has been disposed of by the Magistrate, granting 'A' summary on 6th December, 2000. The complainant therein is at liberty to file a private complaint in respect of the said incident of 21st February, 2000. So far as the prayer for protection is concerned, the petitioner may apply to the Police in accordance with the rules, for providing him necessary protection. 3. With the above order, the petition stands disposed of accordingly. Original Police case papers be returned to the Advocate General.” 6. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Special Leave Petition to the Apex Court. 3. With the above order, the petition stands disposed of accordingly. Original Police case papers be returned to the Advocate General.” 6. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Special Leave Petition to the Apex Court. The Apex Court after hearing the parties, disposed of the petition by passing the following order dated 27/10/2005: “Leave granted. A writ petition was filed in the High Court seeking a direction to the respondents to provide adequate police protection to the person and also property allegedly belonging to the appellant. A direction to the CBI to investigate into the offences complained of by the appellant into various complaints lodged by him with the Goa police was also sought for. After hearing both the parties, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by a brief order directing the State C.I.D. to investigate into the complaints and also allowing liberty to the appellant to file a private complaint in the Court in respect of the incident constituting criminal offences in the terms of the complaints made by the appellant to the police. So far as the prayer for protection is concerned, the appellant was directed to approach the local police for providing him necessary protection in accordance with the rules. During the course of hearing before us it is pointed out that police protection was provided to the appellant but a bill in an amount of Rs.12,55,510/- was raised against the appellant and payment thereof was being insisted on. So far as the High Court's direction for investigation by State C.I.D. is concerned, it is stated that the C.I.D. has completed the investigation and filed final report in the Court of Judicial Magistrate and the trial is on. However, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the investigation has been totally unsatisfactory and also incomplete and in order to find out the truth a direction for investigation by another agency is necessary. Direction is also needed for carrying out investigation into all the complaints made. It appears that the root cause of dispute is some immovable property of which the appellant claims to have title and also possession. According to the respondents the possession is unauthorised and, therefore, has to be removed. Be that as it may, we cannot express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the contending pleas relating to the title over the immovable property in dispute. According to the respondents the possession is unauthorised and, therefore, has to be removed. Be that as it may, we cannot express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the contending pleas relating to the title over the immovable property in dispute. The limited grievance which could have been noticed by the High Court is as regards direction for protection of person and property by the police if the facts and circumstances of the case justify such order being made and also directing full investigation in all the complaints made. Protecting the person and property of a citizen if there is a genuine apprehension as to the safety thereof is an obligation of the State. For such protection a bill cannot be raised and the citizen cannot be called upon to pay for the same. Of course if such protection though not called for has yet been extended on a prayer made by any person then as per the State Rules the person concerned may be required to pay the charges incurred on providing such police protection. In our opinion, the disposal of the petition by the impugned order dated 21/01/2002 has not been satisfactory and the matter needs to be heard and decided afresh by the High Court. The appeal is allowed. The matter is sent back to the High Court. The High Court shall take on record the final report submitted by the State C.I.D. and hear the parties afresh so as to form an opinion whether the investigation by the State C.I.D. has been complete and satisfactory where after the High Court may issue such directions as may be necessary. Similarly, the High Court may examine if there was a real apprehension to the person and property of the appellant calling for protection by making available some police personnel exclusively for the appellant. If the High Court feels satisfied that such protection was necessary then the State cannot raise any bill of charges for the police protection granted to the appellant. On the other hand, if the protection is being sought for by the appellant only on his prayer, though not otherwise necessary then the raising of bill by the State under the relevant rules may be justified. The impugned order of the High Court stands superseded to the extent indicated hereinabove. On the other hand, if the protection is being sought for by the appellant only on his prayer, though not otherwise necessary then the raising of bill by the State under the relevant rules may be justified. The impugned order of the High Court stands superseded to the extent indicated hereinabove. The parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear before the High Court of Bombay on 21st November, 2005.” 7. Thereafter, several orders were passed by this Court inter alia directing the respondents to file affidavits disclosing the steps taken during the course of investigation. It appears that thereafter, charge-sheet was filed against 75 accused. By order dated 08/08/2006, State of Goa was permitted to investigate the complaints at serial nos.(e) to (j) indicated in paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed by Dy.S.P., Panaji and investigation was permitted to be completed expeditiously and in any case within a period of four months. Several affidavits have been filed by respondents no.3, 5, 7 and 8. It is the case set up by respondent no.3 in his affidavit filed that the petitioner was not cooperating with the investigation of crimes mentioned at serial nos.(e) to (j) dated 24/04/2001, 30/04/2001, 02/05/2001, 07/05/2001, 17/05/2001 and 03/06/2001 and further that enquiry conducted so far did not disclose any merits in the said complaints. However, it is the case of the petitioner that he has been cooperating with the investigating agency. Thereafter, on 19/09/2008, it was brought to the notice of this Court by respondents no.1 and 4 that the petitioner was not cooperating with the Investigating Agency and this Court directed the petitioner to remain present before the Investigating Officer on 24/09/2008 at 10.00 a.m. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for final hearing. 8. Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the pleadings and the order dated 27/10/2005 passed by the Apex Court. Mr. 8. Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the pleadings and the order dated 27/10/2005 passed by the Apex Court. Mr. Bhobe submitted that C.I.D. took over the investigation of Crime no.100/2000 and pursuant to order passed by this Court, statements of 75 witnesses were recorded and after completion of the investigation, on 26/06/2002 chargesheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bicholim which was registered as Criminal Case No.53/S/2002/B against 75 accused under Sections 143, 147, 447, 427, 336 and 506-II read with Section 149 of I.P.C. Thereafter, charge was framed against 47 accused under Sections 143, 147, 447, 427, 336 and 506-II read with Section 149 of I.P.C. On 25/09/2008, statements of two witnesses were recorded by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bicholim. On 12/01/2009, the petitioner filed an application before Judicial Magistrate, First Class to engage services of advocate for assisting prosecution and thereafter, on 21/04/2010, the petitioner filed transfer application before the Sessions Court, North Goa, Panaji who by order dated 20/09/2010 transferred Criminal Case from Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bicholim to Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mapusa and thereafter, the trial has not proceeded. 9. Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency is lackadaisical and although statements of 75 persons were recorded in the course of investigation as disclosed in paragraph 9 of the affidavit dated 17/04/2006 filed by Dy.S.P., Bicholim, the statements of all the witnesses have not been annexed to the chargesheet nor any explanation is forthcoming regarding identity or the nature of the statements of the said persons, whose statements are not annexed to the chargesheet. Learned Counsel further submitted that there are several lapses committed in the investigation of the crime. Shankar Harpadkar though was named by the complainant in the complaint dated 20/08/2000, has not been made accused. Similarly, Ramesh Lamgaonkar though identified by Police Inspector G.V.P. Prabhudessai in his statement dated 16/04/2002, has not been made accused. Arjun Patil, who was also named by P.I. Shri G.V.P. Prabhudessai, has not been made accused. Anand Gaonkar, who was identified by P.I. Anant Naik in his statement dated 16/04/2002, has not been made accused. Learned Counsel further submitted that though some sections of Indian Penal Code were attracted, the same have not been mentioned by the Investigating Agency. Arjun Patil, who was also named by P.I. Shri G.V.P. Prabhudessai, has not been made accused. Anand Gaonkar, who was identified by P.I. Anant Naik in his statement dated 16/04/2002, has not been made accused. Learned Counsel further submitted that though some sections of Indian Penal Code were attracted, the same have not been mentioned by the Investigating Agency. According to learned Counsel, chargesheet clearly reveals that the large group of persons had gathered with crow bars and pickaxes and extensive demolition of compound wall was carried out. Sections 144, 146, 148 of I.P.C. have not been invoked. Learned Counsel further submitted that no test identification parade was carried out in respect of the persons who could be identified by the witnesses, but whose names were not known. According to learned Counsel, CW10-Anthony Rego, CW28-Anant Naik and CW21-Laximan Gaonkar had clearly stated that they could identify the perpetrators of the crime if shown to them, but in spite of such statements, no identification parade was held. Learned Counsel further submitted that the chargesheet further reveals that crowd was violent and threatened Police Constables to go away. CW21-Laximan Gaonkar stated that he could identify the members, if shown to him, but no identification parade was held. According to learned Counsel, in view of the statements made by CW21-Laximan Gaonkar and CW23Sanjeev Prabhu, Section 152 of I.P.C. was clearly attracted. Learned Counsel further submitted that there was no proper interrogation of the accused to identify the leaders of the instigators of crowd and to unravel conspiracy to commit offences and no investigation has been carried out from conspiracy angle. According to learned Counsel, the chargesheet clearly discloses that the incident was premeditated and preplanned as is evident from the statements of two Police Officials namely CW11- P.I. Prabhudessaiand CW28- Anant Naik. Learned Counsel further submitted that Section 120-B of I.P.C. which was attracted, has not been invoked though the same is made out. Learned Counsel further submitted that the statement of the complainant clearly discloses that members of the crowd tried to enter the house with intention to kill him and this has been corroborated by CW3-Paulo D'Souza, CW6-Joa D'Souza and CW4-Andresa Candida. However, Section 452 read with Section 511 of I.P.C. which was attracted, has not been invoked. Learned Counsel further submitted that the statement of the complainant clearly discloses that members of the crowd tried to enter the house with intention to kill him and this has been corroborated by CW3-Paulo D'Souza, CW6-Joa D'Souza and CW4-Andresa Candida. However, Section 452 read with Section 511 of I.P.C. which was attracted, has not been invoked. Similarly, other complaints lodged by the complainant, have not been investigated nor there is any material to show that closure reports/ summaries have been filed. According to learned Counsel, the investigation has been carried out in slipshod manner. According to learned Counsel, the petitioner is entitled to protection of his life and liberty, even if it is assumed that he is non-citizen. According to learned Counsel, the investigation has not been carried out in casual manner. Learned Counsel further submitted that the State was bound to give police protection in order to protect the petitioner's life and liberty from the crowd which was bent upon entering his house and to kill him pursuant to conspiracy entered into between them. He, therefore, submitted that the respondents are not entitled to claim any charges by sending the bill in respect of the police force deployed for protection of life and liberty of the petitioner. Mr. Bhobe further submitted that there was genuine apprehension to the petitioner that his life was in danger and his property would also be damaged which is evident from the chargesheet and as such, the State could not have raised bill of Rs.12,55,510/-for police protection. Mr. Bhobe further submitted that respondents no. 1 to 4 have not carried out the investigation in relation to complaints at serial nos. (e) to (j) of the affidavit of Dy.S.P. Bossuet D'Silva, although the Investigating Agency was directed to complete the investigation within a period of four months in terms of order dated 08/08/2006. In support of his submissions, Mr. Bhobe relied upon the following judgments: (i) National Human Rights Commission Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and another; (1996)1 SCC 742 . (ii) Ram Lal Narang Vs. State (Delhi Admn.); AIR 1979 SC 1791 . (iii) J. K. International Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Others; (2001)3 SCC 462 . (iv) Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and others; (2010)12 SC 254. (v) Jahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors; (2004)4 SCC 158 . 10. Per contra, Mr. State (Delhi Admn.); AIR 1979 SC 1791 . (iii) J. K. International Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Others; (2001)3 SCC 462 . (iv) Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and others; (2010)12 SC 254. (v) Jahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors; (2004)4 SCC 158 . 10. Per contra, Mr. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for respondents no.1, 4, 7, and 8 submitted that in view of the Apex Court's order dated 27/10/2005, limited issues arise in the present petition. Learned Advocate General submitted that in the petition, there is no challenge to the bill submitted to the petitioner and there is absolutely no foundation in the pleadings of the petitioner in support of the challenge made. Mr. Nadkarni further submitted that the petitioner has not made any averment in the petition that he is Indian national. Learned Advocate General further submitted that the petitioner is not Indian national and as such, is not entitled to police protection without paying any charges. Insofar as the defects in the investigation alleged by the petitioner are concerned, learned Advocate General submitted that once the Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued summons to the accused, and the trial has begun, it would not be appropriate for this Court to pass any order affecting their rights without hearing them. Learned Advocate General further submitted that once charge has been framed against the accused they are entitled to be heard before the charge is added or altered and in the present case, the accused are not parties. Learned Advocate General further submitted that since two witnesses have been examined in the criminal case arising out of F.I.R. dated 20/08/2000, the only course available for this Court at this stage is to permit the petitioner to take up all the contentions taken before this Court before the learned Magistrate so that appropriate order could be passed by learned Magistrate after hearing the petitioner, the accused and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Learned Advocate General further submitted that the directions given by the Apex Court in the order dated 27/10/2005 were at the time when charge was not framed against the accused. In such an eventuality, this Court could have gone through the chargesheet and found out if the investigation carried out is proper and upon perusing the same, given appropriate directions to the Investigating Agency. In such an eventuality, this Court could have gone through the chargesheet and found out if the investigation carried out is proper and upon perusing the same, given appropriate directions to the Investigating Agency. But at this stage when the trial is midway, it would not be appropriate for this Court to pass any order adverse to the accused without giving them opportunity of being heard. Learned Advocate General further submitted that even in the report filed by the petitioner offence of conspiracy was not alleged, but on the contrary, the affidavit filed by respondent no.3 discloses that the petitioner himself was not cooperating in the investigation. Learned Advocate General further submitted that although the petitioner being the first informant, is not entitled to conduct the proceedings before the Magistrate, he will have no objection if liberty is given to the petitioner to make submissions before the Magistrate to urge that charges ought to be framed against the accused in respect of the additional Sections of Indian Penal Code on the basis of the material on record or to urge that further investigation deserves to be carried out so that the Magistrate can pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of being heard to the accused and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Learned Advocate General further submitted that since the petitioner did not cooperate with the Investigating Agency for proper investigation of the complaints at serial nos. (e) to (j), no fault could be found with the Investigating Agency inasmuch the enquiry/ investigation carried out so far discloses that there are no merits in the said complaints. In support of his submissions, Mr. Nadkarni placed reliance upon the following judgments : (i) Bharat Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others; AIR 1988 SC 2181 . (ii) ShashikantVs. Central Bureau of Investigation and other; (2007)1 SCC 630 . (iii) Abdul Waheed Khan alias Waheed and others; Vs. State of A.P.; (2002)7 SCC 175 . 11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record and the judgments relied upon. 12. As stated above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court by order dated 21/01/2002. (iii) Abdul Waheed Khan alias Waheed and others; Vs. State of A.P.; (2002)7 SCC 175 . 11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record and the judgments relied upon. 12. As stated above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court by order dated 21/01/2002. The Apex Court by order dated 27/10/2005 allowed the appeal and gave directions which are as follows : (i) To form an opinion whether the investigation by the State C.I.D. is complete and satisfactory and depending upon the same, issue directions as may be necessary. (ii) To examine whether the bill raised by the State in the sum of Rs.12,55,510/-was justified. The Apex Court observed that if there is genuine apprehension as to safety of the person and property of a citizen, the State could not have raised bill for police protection granted, but on the other hand, if the protection is sought by the petitioner only on his prayer, then raising of the bill by the State could be justified. 13. We will deal with the judgements relied upon by both sides. In the case of Ram Lal Narang (supra) relied upon by Mr. Bhobe, the Apex Court has held that if the involvement of the persons who are not already accused comes to the notice of the Investigating Agency, the Investigating Agency cannot keep quite and refuse to investigate the fresh information. It is their duty to investigate and submit the report to the Magistrate upon the involvement of the other persons and it is for the Magistrate to decide upon his future course of action depending upon the stage at which the case is before him. If the Magistrate has already taken cognizance of offence, but has not proceeded with the enquiry or trial, he may direct the issue of process to persons freshly discovered to be involved and deal with all the accused in single enquiry or trial. If the case of which he had previously taken cognizance has already proceeded to some extent, he may take fresh cognizance of the offence against the newly involved accused and proceed with the case as separate case. What action the Magistrate has to take in accordance with provisions of Criminal Procedure Code in such situation is a matter best left to the discretion of the Magistrate. What action the Magistrate has to take in accordance with provisions of Criminal Procedure Code in such situation is a matter best left to the discretion of the Magistrate. In the case of J. K. International (supra), the Apex Court held that the complainant at whose behest the proceedings were initiated, must on his request be permitted by the Court to be heard before the proceedings are quashed and the mere fact that cognizance has been taken is no bar to the complainant's participation in the criminal proceedings initiated by him. In the case of Jahira Habibulla H. Sheikh (supra), the Apex Court held that if the acquittal was unmerited and based on tainted evidence and tailored investigation, and the trial was perfunctory, and evidence was of threatened/terrorised witnesses and the trial was conducted by unprincipled prosecutor, there was no acquittal in the eye of law and directed retrial. In our opinion, the ratio of the said judgment is not applicable in the present case. In the case of Babubhai (supra), the Apex Court held that there can be two FIRs in respect of two different incidents and in such a case, second FIR is permissible. However, two FIRs in relation to same incident or incidents which are part of same transaction, are not permissible. The Apex Court further held that if the investigation has not been conducted fairly, such investigation and consequential chargesheet filed, deserve to be quashed. In the case of Shashikant (supra) relied upon by learned Advocate General, the Apex Court held that the police can hold preliminary enquiry and it is not necessary to lodge FIR before conducting preliminary enquiry. The Apex Court held that normally a writ Court cannot direct the Investigative Agency to carry out investigation in a particular manner and it can interfere with the functioning of Investigative Agency only in exceptional cases. The judgment in the case of Abdul Waheed Khan (supra) relied upon by learned Advocate General is in relation to object and purpose of delay in holding second identification parade. We do not deem it necessary to refer to the said judgment in detail. 14. Insofar as the first direction is concerned, admittedly, there was no stay of the trial in criminal case filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bicholim. We do not deem it necessary to refer to the said judgment in detail. 14. Insofar as the first direction is concerned, admittedly, there was no stay of the trial in criminal case filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bicholim. There is no dispute that the said case has been transferred to Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mapusa on the request made by the petitioner, who is first informant and already two witnesses have been examined in the said case. In this factual background, we find merit in the submission of learned Advocate General that it would not be proper exercise for this Court at this stage to find out if the investigation carried out is complete and satisfactory and give appropriate directions since the rights of the accused would be affected. Admittedly, the said accused in the criminal case are not before us and as such, any direction issued may affect their rights. But at the same time, the petitioner cannot be left without any remedy. In our opinion, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the directions given by the Apex Court, interest of justice would be served by directing learned Magistrate to hear the petitioner/ first informant herein, the accused and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and give appropriate directions regarding framing of charge under additional sections of Indian Penal Code or any other Penal Law and also direct further investigation if the Magistrate is of the opinion that such a direction is required. No doubt, under Criminal Procedure Code, the right of first informant in a pending criminal case is limited. But in the present case, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and directions given by the Apex Court, we are of the considered opinion that the only appropriate course available to us at this stage is to direct the Magistrate to hear the petitioner, the accused and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and find out if charges under additional sections of Indian Penal Code or any other Penal Law have to be framed against the accused who are already arrayed and if prima face case is made out against any other person not named in the chargesheet, to proceed against him and also to find out whether further investigation is required in the case. 15. 15. Coming to second direction, on behalf of respondents no.1, 4, 7 and 8, it has been submitted by learned Advocate General that there is absolutely no foundation in the pleadings regarding the circumstances justifying as to why the bill raised by the State Government was not justified and there is not even a prayer to that effect. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Singh (supra), learned Advocate General submitted that the party raising a point is required to substantiate it by pleading facts and also evidence in order to prove the case. Learned Advocate General submitted that absolutely no foundation has been laid by the petitioner for this Court to come to the conclusion as to whether there was genuine apprehension to the petitioner as to his person and property and in the absence of such pleadings, it would not be appropriate for this Court to give finding in this regard and the petitioner would not be entitled to relief insofar as bill is concerned. Learned Advocate General had also submitted that the petitioner not being a citizen of India, he is not entitled to protection of his life and property. Insofar as protection of life and property of the petitioner is concerned, we are unable to accept the submission made by learned Advocate General in view of clear ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Human Rights Commission (supra) relied upon by Mr. Bhobe dealing with Chakma refugees settled in State of Arunachal Pradesh. The Apex Court held that the State is obliged to give protection to life and liberty of noncitizens also. Be that as it may, we find merit in the submission of learned Advocate General that there is absolutely no foundation by way of pleadings in the petition in support of the plea that the State Government was not entitled to raise bill. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Bhobe that there was genuine apprehension to the petitioner regarding safety of his person and property on the basis of the chargesheet filed by the prosecution itself inasmuch as no reliance can be placed on the chargesheet for the purpose of finding out whether there was genuine apprehension to the petitioner as to safety to his person and property. Bhobe that there was genuine apprehension to the petitioner regarding safety of his person and property on the basis of the chargesheet filed by the prosecution itself inasmuch as no reliance can be placed on the chargesheet for the purpose of finding out whether there was genuine apprehension to the petitioner as to safety to his person and property. Indisputably, the statements recorded in the course of investigation under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. are not signed and they can be used for limited purpose in the course of criminal trial. Therefore, in the absence of any material on record, we are unable to hold that the State Government was not entitled to raise the bill for granting police protection to the petitioner. 16. In view of the above, the challenge to the bill raised by the State Government for providing police protection cannot succeed. 17. Insofar as the submission made by Mr. Bhobe that Shankar Harphadkar (whose surname is mentioned as Haldankar in Chargesheet) Ramesh Lamgaonkar (whose name is mentioned as Ramakant in Chargesheet) and Arjun Patil (whose surname is mentioned as Naik in Chargesheet) have not been made accused in spite of their complicity is established is concerned, we find merit in the submission of learned Advocate General that they are accused nos.14, 18 and 22 respectively and their real names are mentioned in the chargesheet. Therefore, as far as this grievance of the petitioner is concerned, we do not find any merit. Insofar as further investigation by the Investigating Agency is concerned, we leave it to learned Magistrate to pass appropriate order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the accused and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 18. Insofar as complaints dated 24/04/2001, 30/04/2001, 02/05/2001, 07/05/2001, 17/05/2001 and 03/06/2001 are concerned, as stated above, it is the case of the petitioner that he is cooperating with the Investigating Agency and it is the case of respondents no.1 to 4 that the petitioner is not cooperating with the Investigating Agency. As such, in our opinion, it would be appropriate to direct the Investigating Agency to approach the concerned Magistrate and get appropriate orders in relation to the said complaints. Accordingly, the Investigating Agency to approach the concerned Magistrate and get appropriate orders in relation thereto. As such, in our opinion, it would be appropriate to direct the Investigating Agency to approach the concerned Magistrate and get appropriate orders in relation to the said complaints. Accordingly, the Investigating Agency to approach the concerned Magistrate and get appropriate orders in relation thereto. Needless to mention that the Magistrate shall deal with the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. 19. In view of the above, we direct learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mapusa dealing with criminal case arising out of FIR No.100/2000 to hear the petitioner, the accused and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and find out if charges under additional sections of Indian Penal Code or any other Penal Law have to be framed against the accused who are already arrayed and if prima face case is made out against any other person not named in the chargesheet, to proceed against him in accordance with law and also further to find out whether further investigation is warranted in the case, having regard to the investigation already carried out. 20. Writ Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.