- 1 - 4130.5389 rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4130 OF 2010 1. Mohd. Kunju Kamaludeen .. Applicant vs 1,Mohd. Abbas Mohd. Hussain Patel 2.The State of Maharashtra Respondents with CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5389 OF 2010 Mohd. Kunju Kamaludden .. Applicant vs 1. Mrs Sahanaz Mohammed Abbas Patel 2. Mr.Sudhir Shankar Kudtarkar 3. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Mr.Manoj Bhatt for Applicant Mr.Pravin Singhal for Respondent No.1 CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J DATE: 24 th August 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These two Applications are filed by the original Complainant seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions court - 2 - 4130.5389 to the Respondents in crime No.5 of 2010 registered by Belapur police station on the basis of orders passed by the learned J.M.F.C,Vashi in Misc. Application No.165/2010 under sections 406, 409, 420,464,465, 471, 504, 506, 177, 193, 165, 166, 109,120 read wit section 34 of Indian penal code. 3. Admittedly, Mohammed Abbas, who is the Respondent No.1 in Criminal Application No.4130 of 2010 is the person whose land was acquired by CIDCO for development of Navi Mumbai city. As per the scheme known as 12.5% scheme, certain developed plot was to be allotted by CIDCO to the said Mohammed Abbas. According to the complainant, said Mohammed Abbas had entered into an agreement to transfer the said plot to him after its allotment by CIDCO and had also received certain amount. According to him, the prescription amount of Rs.6,05,000/-, required to be paid by Mohammed Abbas, was also deposited by him and the original documents which were - 3 - 4130.5389 handed over by Mohammed Abbas to the complainant were deposited by him with CIDCO for necessary action. However, later on said Mohammed Abbas refused to transfer the plot to the complainant and he entered into an agreement for transfer of the said property to Sudhir Kudtarkar, who is Respondent No.2 in Application No.5389 of 2010. In view of this development, the complainant filed Special Civil Suit No.154 of 2005 for specific performance of contract. According to him, the Civil Court had granted temporary injunction restraining Mohammed Abbas from creating third party interests pending the suit. However, the accused persons joined hands and made false affidavit in the office of CIDCO and tried to get the property transferred in the name of Sudhir Kudtarkar. It is also contended that Accused persons removed the original documents which were deposited by the complainant with CIDCO and thus committed offences. The Respondent No.1 in Criminal Application No.5489 of 2011 is wife of Mahammed - 4 - 4130.5389 Abbas. 4. Admittedly, the documents which were allegedly withdrawn by the accused persons from CIDCO office were in favour of Mohammed Abbas. According to the Complainant, he had only entered into an agreement to purchase the plot after its allotment by CIDCO. If the original allottee has not complied with the contract, the Plaintiff has a remedy for which he had filed a suit for specific performance in 2005. He filed the complaint resulting in registration of the offence on 11.3.2010. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances even though there is allegation that some criminal offences have been committed by filing false affidavit and by removing certain documents, basically, it is a civil dispute between the parties and in any case it is not a case where custodial interrogation of the accused persons is required or where it would be necessary to - 5 - 4130.5389 detain them pending the criminal case. Therefore, I find no fault in the anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court. 6. In the result, Application stands rejected. J.H.BHATIA, J