JUDGMENT : S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition has been filed with following substantive prayers: "[B] Respondent No. 1 to 4 may kindly be directed to take disciplinary or appropriate action against the investigating officer i.e. Respondent No. 5. [C] By Way of an appropriate Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 may kindly be directed and ordered to reinvestigate the crime or may kindly be directed to file further report/additional/supplementary charge sheet/appropriate report in accordance with law, before the appropriate Court of law in Crime No. 54/2017, Police Station, Majalgaon." 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner filed complaint on 9th June, 2017 in Majalgaon City Police Station alleging therein that on 9th June, 2017 at about .00 p.m. the Petitioner was severally beaten by accused Dinesh Mendke, Ankush Mendke and one another unknown accused with the help of stick/saddle (Kathi). The said assault was done on the say of Dr. Suresh @ Suryakant Sable. Therefore, the concerned police registered the offence vide Crime No. 54 of 2017 for the offence under Section 323, 324, 326, 341, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to Property) Act, 2010, against the accused persons including Dr. Suryakant @ Dr. Suresh Sable. Thereafter on 10th June, 2017, supplementary statement of the Petitioner was recorded in which the correct name of accused was given as Rameshwar Mendke. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, namely, Raju Chavan, Rajesh Salve, Vijay Salve, Ramesh Jadhav, Sachin Dakh, who have categorically stated about the involvement of Mr. Suryakant @ Suresh Sable, in the crime. After completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed the charge-sheet before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, which is numbered as R.C.C. No. 85 of 2017. It is the case of the Petitioner that the investigating officer has not done the proper investigation and has not included the name of Dr. Suresh @ Suryakant Sable and Rameshwar Mendke as accused in the charge-sheet. Hence this Petition has been filed by the Petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the investigating officer/Respondent No. 5 has deliberately not carried out the investigation in proper manner. Suresh @ Suryakant Sable and Rameshwar Mendke as accused in the charge-sheet. Hence this Petition has been filed by the Petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the investigating officer/Respondent No. 5 has deliberately not carried out the investigation in proper manner. The Petitioner has specifically given the complaint against Dr. Suryakant @ Suresh Sable and it is the case of the Petitioner that only on the instigation of Dr. Suryakant @ Suresh Sable the present crime has been committed by rest of the accused persons. It is submitted that even other witnesses have specifically stated about the involvement of Dr. Suryakant @ Suresh Sable in the crime, still the investigating officer has neither arrested Dr. Sable nor given him notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though there was ample evidence against accused Dr. Sable and Rameshwar Mendke, the investigating officer has not filed the charge sheet against them. Even the investigating officer has not filed the report under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Dr. Sable and Rameshwar Mendke. Learned counsel further submits that the investigating officer has not given any notice/information to the Petitioner about filing of the charge-sheet. It is submitted that for obtaining call details, investigating officer has given wrong cell numbers to the Superintendent of Police. Learned counsel submits that the investigating officer has not carried out the investigation in impartial manner and therefore the Petition deserves to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the Respondents, referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of Respondent No. 5, submits that the Petitioner lodged complaint at City Police Station, Majalgaon on 9th June, 2017, initially alleging that one Dinesh mendke and Ankush Mendhke have assaulted him at the instance of Dr. Sable. In the supplementary statement recorded on 10th June, 2017, the Petitioner has stated that by mistake he has given the name of Ankush Mendhke, and further stated that Rameshwar, Dinesh Mendhke and one unknown person have assaulted him. It is submitted that in additional statement recorded on 12th June, 2017, the Petitioner has stated that one Ganesh Gadshinge and Dinesh Mendhke were the assailants. It is submitted that statements of two eye witnesses, namely Balasaheb Gholap and Jeevan Jagatap were recorded, who stated that assailants were Ganesh Gadshinge and Dinesh Mendhke, and therefore further investigation was carried out. It is submitted that in additional statement recorded on 12th June, 2017, the Petitioner has stated that one Ganesh Gadshinge and Dinesh Mendhke were the assailants. It is submitted that statements of two eye witnesses, namely Balasaheb Gholap and Jeevan Jagatap were recorded, who stated that assailants were Ganesh Gadshinge and Dinesh Mendhke, and therefore further investigation was carried out. It is submitted that though the Petitioner has stated in his complaint that at the time of assault, Ramesh Salve and Vilas Salve were present on the spot, but after verifying the CDR record of their mobile tower location, it revealed that those two witnesses were not present at the spot of incident. Learned A.P.P. further submits that the investigating officer has verified the genuineness of the incident and the allegations, and found that Dr. Sable was not in India since from 5th June, 2017 to 12th June, 2017 and Dr. Sable was at abroad during the said period. The investigating officer has accordingly collected the copies of passport and air tickets also. Learned A.P.P. further submits that the investigating officer has investigated the crime thoroughly and properly. It is submitted that the Petitioner has changed his version in each and every statement and as the Petitioner wants to expand the scope of crime, the Petitioner is trying to implicate some other persons who were not present on the spot at the time of incident. Learned A.P.P. further submits that after proper investigation of the crime, the investigating officer has rightly filed charge-sheet against two persons who were named by the Petitioner himself in his last statement, which has been supported by two eye witnesses. 5. Learned A.P.P., further submits that, during the investigation, the investigating officer has recorded statements of as many as 13 witnesses who were near by the spot, including statement of some doctors who knows the Petitioner as well as Dr. Sable. The investigating officer has also conducted spot panchnama, collected the injury certificate and also recovered motorcycle under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, at the behest of Dinesh Mendke. It is submitted that after considering the statement of the witnesses, the investigating officer came to the conclusion to file the charge-sheet under Section 324, 504, 506 read with of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that so far as deletion of name of Dr. It is submitted that after considering the statement of the witnesses, the investigating officer came to the conclusion to file the charge-sheet under Section 324, 504, 506 read with of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that so far as deletion of name of Dr. Sable is concerned, the investigating officer has not find any evidence against him except that his name is mentioned in the First Information Report. It is submitted that during the investigation, it was revealed that Dr. Sable, at the relevant time, was not present in India and he was at Mauritius, and his tour was started from 5th June, 2017 at 6.45 a.m. and Dr. Sable went to Mauritius. It is submitted that the investigating officer did not find any evidence against Dr. Sable. So far as Rameshwar Mendke is concerned, it is submitted that in the third supplementary statement dated 12th June, 2017, the Petitioner himself has exonerated Rameshwar Mendke and stated only two names i.e. Dinesh Mendke and Ganesh Ghadsing, Learned A.P.P. further submits that the investigating officer verified the CDR record of the mobile phones of the accused as well as Dr. Sable for two months prior to the date of incident and it revealed that there was no conversation between the accused and Dr. Sable. It is further submitted that after collecting the evidence and after going through the entire investigation, the investigating officer has rightly filed charge-sheet under Section 324, 504, 506 read with 4 of the Indian Penal Code against Dinesh Mendke and Ganesh Ghadsing. Learned A.P.P., therefore, submits that there is no substance in the Writ Petition, and the same deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have given careful consideration to the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the Applicants and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and its officials. With their able assistance, we have perused the grounds taken in the Petition; annexures thereto, reply filed on behalf of the Respondents and the investigation papers made available for our perusal by learned A.P.P. 7. It is the allegation the Petitioner that though he has specifically stated in the First Information Report that he was assaulted by the accused persons at the instance of Dr. Sable, the investigating officer has filed charge-sheet only against two accused, namely, Ganesh Gadshinge and Dinesh Mendke and deliberated avoided to file charge-sheet against Dr. It is the allegation the Petitioner that though he has specifically stated in the First Information Report that he was assaulted by the accused persons at the instance of Dr. Sable, the investigating officer has filed charge-sheet only against two accused, namely, Ganesh Gadshinge and Dinesh Mendke and deliberated avoided to file charge-sheet against Dr. Sable, and thus the investigating officer has not carried out the investigation in proper manner. 8. The perusal of the investigation papers and reply filed on behalf of the Respondents reveals that the incident of assault took place on 9th June, 2017. During the course of investigation it was revealed that on the day of incident, Dr. Suresh @ Suryakant Sable was not in India. During the period from 5th June, 2017 till 12th June, 2017, Dr. Sable was in Mauritius. It appears that the investigating officer has also collected the copies of passport and air tickets of Dr. Sable. The investigation papers reveal that the investigating officer verified the CDR records in respect of the mobile phones of the accused persons as well as of Dr. Sable for two months prior to the date of incident and it was revealed that there was no conversation between the accused and Dr. Sable during the said period. 9. So far as Rameshwar Mendke is concerned, it appears that, the Petitioner himself has exonerated said Rameshwar Mendke in the supplementary statement recorded on 12th June, 2017, and stated names of only two accused i.e. Dinesh Mendke and Ganesh Ghadsing. 10. Thus, upon careful perusal of the investigation papers, it appears that the investigating officer has carried out the investigation in proper manner. Even the statements of as many as 13 witnesses have been recorded. The relevant CDR record was called and verified and after proper investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against two accused persons. In the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that, at this stage, it may not be appropriate to issue any directions as prayed by the Petitioner. However, during the course of the trial, if some material is surfaced on record indicating the role of Dr. Sable, the trial Court may invoke the provisions of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, and may pass appropriate orders. 11. However, during the course of the trial, if some material is surfaced on record indicating the role of Dr. Sable, the trial Court may invoke the provisions of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, and may pass appropriate orders. 11. In view of the discussion in foregoing paragraphs, we are of the opinion that there is no substance in the Writ Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition stands rejected.