sat 1 wp 749-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 749 OF 2011 Nareshkumar Ramesh Solanki ...Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.K.H. Giri for the Petitioner. Mr.Y.S. Shinde, APP for the State. Mr.O.P. Shukla for the Intervenor in Cri.Appln.No.276 of 2011. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. JULY 20, 2011 P.C. :- 1 We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2 As directed by us on 15th June, 2011, the petitioner’s statement came to be recorded by the Samata Nagar Police Station, Kandivali (East). The petitioner has filed additional affidavit on 24th June, 2011 and stated that the Samata Nagar Police sat 2 wp 749-2011 Station recorded his statement on 18th June, 2011 pursuant to our order. A copy of the said statement has been annexed to the additional affidavit and we have perused the same. 3 On the other hand, the learned APP, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner has already filed SC Suit No.437/2011 in respect of the very same shop, which is a subject of his complaint, to the police station and the Notice of Motion filed for seeking injunction came to be withdrawn by the petitioner-plaintiff. However, before the Notice of Motion was withdrawn, the learned trial Judge by his order dated 4th March, 2011 rejected the prayer for ad-interim relief and specifically noted that the letter dated 1st March, 2011 was a repossession letter and it indicated that the plaintiff had delivered the possession of the suit shop to the defendant. 4 Mr.Shinde, the learned APP, therefore, submitted that the Investigating Officer has sat 3 wp 749-2011 considered the statement recorded on 18th June, 2011 and the petitioner was trying to make out a criminal case purely arising from civil disputes and there was no substance in the allegations made in the statement recorded regarding with the dispute that had purportedly taken place between 4th to 7th March, 2011. If the petitioner had already handed over the possession of the suit shop on 1st March, 2011, there would be no occasion to go and open the said shop on 4th March, 2011 or any time thereof. Babulal Singhvi is the defendant in SC Suit No.437/2011 and the petitioner claims that a FIR is required to be registered against him. We agree, prima facie, on the earlier occasion, a civil dispute was tried to be converted into a criminal complaint. Therefore, we do not find any case made out to register a crime and cause investigation. 5 The petition is rejected. The connected sat 4 wp 749-2011 Criminal Application No.276/2011 does not survive and the same is also disposed of. (U.D. SALVI, J) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J)