1 wp3124.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3124 OF 2011 KJ Mrs.Pawni w/o. Ashok Jain )..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. )..Respondents ---- Mr.A.H.H.Ponda along with Ms.Seema Gupta i/by A.M.Saraogi for the petitioner. Mrs.Aruna Pai APP for respondent/State. ---- CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & P.D.KODE, JJ DATE : 14th October, 2011 PC 1 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2 Rule. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. 3 Learned APP has raised preliminary objection. According to 2 wp3124.11.sxw her the complainant should also be made party to this petition. When we called upon to explain as to how the complainant would be a necessary or proper party, the reason stated for attachment of shop nos.2 & 4 is pressed into service. We shall presently advert to the said reason, which we hold is untenable. 4 We have no manner of doubt that the complainant can neither be said to be a necessary or proper party in the context of the relief claimed by the petitioner in this petition. The relief in this petition is to issue direction to respondent no.1 to forthwith remove the seal put up by him on shop nos.2 & 4 situated in building known as Bhagyaratna Niwas, Third Road, Khar (West), Mumbai-400 052. The said premises have been sealed by the Investigating officer on the ground that the transaction between the petitioner’s husband and the complainant, in respect of which allegation of cheating has been made against the petitioner’s husband, was effected therein. That however, does not mean that shop nos.2 & 4 would become subject matter of property involved in the crime in question. The crime is in respect of cheating of 3 wp3124.11.sxw diamonds. It is not even the case of the complainant that the said shops were purchased by the petitioner or her husband after the diamonds, which are property of the crime, were sold and the sale proceeds invested for purchasing of the shops. Even if that suggestion was to be made, we would appreciate the stand taken by the Investigating officer that it was necessary to seal the shop nos.2 & 4 in the building known as Bhagyaratna Niwas, Third Road, Khar (West), Mumbai-400 052. 5 The only reason stated for sealing of the said premises, is that, the transaction in respect of the diamonds in question was effected in shop nos.2 & 4. That, in our opinion, can be no ground whatsoever for sealing of the premises. As a result, we have no hesitation in allowing this petition and make it absolute in terms of prayer clause-(a). At the same time, we make it clear that the investigating officer is free to enter into premises i.e shop nos.2 & 4 if and when required in connection with the investigation of the case in future or to seize any goods/items kept therein which may be property of the crime. That option would be always available to 4 wp3124.11.sxw the Investigating officer, which power will have to be exercised in accordance with the provisions of law. Petition allowed in the above terms. 6 We direct the investigating officer to remove the seal from the premises forthwith and in any case not later than 11.00 A.M tomorrow and report compliance to this court on 17.10.2011. The matter be notified under caption “direction” only for reporting compliance of this direction. (P.D.KODE,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)