1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 696 OF 2010 Juzer Nagree ..... Petitioner versus Sudhir Kantilal Doshi & ors........ Respondents Mr. S. Shamin i/b Shamim & Co. adv. For the petitioner Mr. M.r. Tidake APP for State, CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATED : 20th October, 2010 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who was pleased to dismiss the complaint filed by him against the respondent for offence punishable under sections 406, 420, 120-B of IPC and also the order passed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision application filed by him whereby the Sessions Court was pleased to confirm the order passed by the Addl.C.M.M. 2. Brief facts are that the complainant claims to be the tenant of the property situated at Yusuf Maherali Road, Bombay. It is the case of the complainant that he entered into an agreement of sale with the accused and paid certain amounts to them. 2 Accused are the owners of the said property. It is the case of the complainant that the possession of the said property was handed over to him. According to the complainant on 29-4-1992 the respondent nos. 1,4,5 and 6 conveyed the property to respondent nos. 8 and 9 and the said conveyance was registered on 22-3-2009. The complainant’s case is that he had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 13-4-1999 and in the Notice of Motion which was filed in the said suit in the year 2008, the complainant dealt with the subsequent conveyance executed by the accused. He therefore filed complaint on 4-4-2009. 3. The learned Magistrate upon perusal of the complaint came to the conclusion that the dispute was of civil nature. He also observed that no explanation was given by the complainant regarding the delay caused in filing the complaint. Against this order, the complainant preferred Criminal Application before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submitted that the complainant came to know about the subsequent agreement only after the affidavit was filed by the respondent no.1 in the Notice of Motion on 18-2-2010. He submitted that in the pending suit the respondent no.1 had filed his written statement and had denied the execution of the said subsequent agreement. He therefore submitted that this is a clear case of criminal breach of trust and cheating by the accused. 4. I perused the complaint and the impugned orders passed by both the courts below. In my view, no case is made out for 3 interference with the order passed by the lower courts. Perusal of the complaint therefore discloses that the civil suit is already pending in the competent court. The complainant has arrayed the subsequent purchaser of the property as defendants. The trial court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the dispute is of civil nature. No case is therefore made out for interference with the impugned orders by exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. (V. M. KANADE, J.)