1 268110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY vgm CRIMINAL APELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2681 OF 2010 Manoj S/o. Mohan Mirchandani ...Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. A.M. Saraogi with Mr. R.R. Varma for the Petitioner Mr. J.P. Yagnik, A.P.P., for the State CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 2011 P.C.:- Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. 2. This petition is filed for quashing of MECR on the basis of order passed by the Magistrate issuing directions to the local police station under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code in C.C. No. 42/SW of 2010. The said MECR has been registered for offences 2 268110 punishable under Sections 420, 403, 406, 391, 451, 462, 468, 107 and 506(ii) read with 120-B and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The argument before us canvassed on behalf of the petitioner, who is one of the accused, i.e., accused No. 9, is that, even if the complaint or MECR is to be taken as it is, no allegation indicating involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences is made out. 4. We have perused the complaint as well as the other relevant material. Prima facie, it is not possible to accept the grievance of the petitioner. The complaint refers to the acts of commission and omission of the petitioner in the commission of the crime. The offence as registered is also for Section 120-B of the I.P.C. On perusal of allegations contained in paragraphs 2 and 18 of the complaint, and reading the complaint as a whole, it is noticed that it is the petitioner who took initiative in introducing for giving the premises on the company tenancy basis. Besides, it is alleged that the petitioner had threatened the Chairman of Ryewood Retreat Motels Pvt. Ltd. on telephone with dire consequences. 3 268110 5. It is not necessary to elaborate the other allegations, as the counsel for the petitioner submits that, since the Court is not inclined to exercise Writ Jurisdiction to quash the MECR, the petitioner may be allowed to withdraw this petition, with liberty to pursue such other remedy as may be permissible in law. We have no difficulty in acceding to this request of the petitioner. 6. The petition is, accordingly, allowed to be withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue other remedy as may be permissible in law. 7. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner submits that ad-interim order dated 14th June, 2011 be continued for a period of two weeks from today, to enable the petitioner to take recourse to other remedy. It is not possible to accept this request. Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) is very wide. Such relief cannot be granted once the challenge to the MECR is withdrawn. However, by way of indulgence, the petitioner can be given one week’s protection of limited nature that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner for a period of one week from today to enable the petitioner to approach the concerned Court for other appropriate remedy as may be permissible 4 268110 in law. This protection is granted on condition that the petitioner shall report to the local police station, if and when required by the Investigating Officer, and co-operate in the investigation in all respects during that period. R.G. KETKAR, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.