1 WP : 2298/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2298 OF 2011 Mrs. Aditi Sanjay Salvi & Anr. .... Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr..... Respondents Mr. A.M. Saraogi, Advocate for petitioners. U.V. Kezriwal, A.P.P. for State. Ms. Mallika Ingale, Advocate for respondent no.2. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 9th November, 2011 P.C. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, the petition is heard immediately. 2. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. 3. This petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India and under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.” for short) is directed 2 WP : 2298/2011 against the order dated 13th July 2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, Mumbai in Complaint No.2400289/SW/2011 filed by respondent no.2 alleging commission of offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 406 read with 34 Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. By the impugned order, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has directed respondent no.1 to conduct an enquiry under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and investigate into the complaint of respondent no.2. 4. Mr. Saraogi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint filed by respondent no.2 is false and frivolous, and it is fallout of civil proceedings pending between the parties. Further according to him, there is a technical defect in the complaint, in as much as the complaint does not indicate that respondent no.2 had before filing a private complaint approached the Police with his grievance. 5. Perusal of the complaint, a copy of which is annexed at paragraph 10 of the petition shows that at its paragraph 12, respondent no.2 has referred to the written complaint 3 WP : 2298/2011 dated 4th June 2011 made by him against the petitioner to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Assistant Commissioner Police and the Senior Inspector Police, Kurar Police Station with a request to take action in the matter. Since no action was taken on a complaint, respondent no.2 was constrained to file a private complaint before the learned Magistrate. Hence, there is no substance in the argument of technical defect in the complaint. 6. Respondent no. 2 is the owner of shop premises situate at 137, Jai Bajrang Chowk, Appapada, Malad (East), Mumbai. According to his complaint, in the year 2008, on account of some personal difficulties, he was required to go to his native place. Therefore, he had permitted the petitioners to occupy the shop temporarily on leave and license basis. On his return from the native place, petitioner No.2 proposed for extension of leave and license period. Accordingly, respondent no.2 entered into leave and license agreement dated 23rd July 2008 for a period of 22 months, on payment of compensation of Rs.6,000/- per month and security deposit of Rs.60,000/-. When the agreement was about to expire, respondent no.2 learnt 4 WP : 2298/2011 from the neighbours that the petitioners have, by submitting forged documents to M/s Reliance Energy Limited got the electricity connection transferred to their name. Then they filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court, being S.C. Suit No.637 of 2007, on the basis of possession for an injunction simplicitor to restrain respondent no.2 from dis-possessing the petitioners from the shop premises without following due process of law. Thereafter, respondent no.2 filed the complaint herein. The petitioners claim that the respondent no.2 has sold the shop premises to them and rely upon two documents for the purpose. One is agreement of sale dated 26th December 2009 and the other is sale-deed dated 28th July 2008. There is no explanation as to how a sale-deed could precede the agreement of sale. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 points out that even the amount of consideration for the shop premises is different in the two documents. The agreement of sale, the subsequent document refers to the amount of consideration as Rs.8,50,000/-, whereas the sale- deed refers to the consideration as of Rs.10,00,000/-. She has also points out that the receipts for the transaction 5 WP : 2298/2011 allegedly issued by the petitioners are forged receipts with the alterations made on the amount paid under the same. Considering all above facts, it cannot be said that there is no case made out in the complaint filed by respondent no.2 for the learned Magistrate to direct investigation by Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.. It is clear from the facts of the case that the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is correct and legal order and the same does not require any interference by this Court. Pendency of the civil proceedings, which is a suit for simplicitor injunction to restrain the respondent no.2 from dis-possessing the petitioners from the shop premises, without following due process of law, can have no bearing whatsoever on the criminal complaint filed by respondent no.2. Hence, the petition is dismissed. The Rule is discharged. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)