1 35 wp.1212.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1212 OF 2010 Mohd. Kallu Ibrahim Shah. ... Petitioner Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and ors. ... Respondents ----- Mr. C.K. Tripathi for the Petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Patil for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. ----- CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR and U.D. SALVI, JJ. DATE : 23 rd August, 2010. P.C. 1 By this writ petition, it is prayed that the complaint lodged against the Petitioner for offence punishable under Section 394 r/w 474 of MMC Act pending on the file of the learned 42 nd Magistrate Shindewadi Court, Dadar, Mumbai be quashed and set aside. 2 Three contentions have been raised before us. The first point is that the complaint cannot proceed having regard to the licence already issued in favour of the Petitioner by the Corporation at page 13. Insofar as this contention is concerned, the copy of the licence which is appended to the petition at page 13 pertains to licence under the Shop 2 35 wp.1212.10 and Establishment Act. We find force in the argument of the Respondents that the Petitioner was obliged to obtain licence under the provisions of the Corporation Act to carry on trade. That licence is not forthcoming. To get over this position, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has already applied for such licence and his application is pending. If so, that will not extricate the Petitioner from the rigours of the provisions for which offence is proceeded against the Petitioner. Inasmuch as no business of trade could be conducted by the Petitioner without prior licence issued by the appropriate authority in that behalf. We make it clear that these observations are tentative to consider the arguments canvassed before us in the present petition. The trial Court would proceed with the matter on its own merits in accordance with law. 3 The second contention is that the complaint as lodged, is without authority. Inasmuch as, the authority at page 19 given to Shri. V.S. Telele is not to lodge the complaint, but for other purposes. Once again this argument clearly overlooks that the complaint has been filed by the Senior Legal Assistant Zone-VI and not by said Mr. V.S. Telele. As a matter of fact, the said Mr. V.S. Telele is only a witness in the said proceedings. It is not the case of the Petitioner that the Senior Legal Assistant Zone-VI had no authority to lodge the complaint. In the circumstances, there is no merits even in the second contention. 3 35 wp.1212.10 4 It is next contended that the complaint is a mechanical and stereotype complaint. We are not impressed by this submission. The complaint is in respect of the offence for not possessing valid licence issued by the appropriate authority for doing business of trade. For the nature of complaint, the cyclostyled complaint filed with necessary information recorded in hand cannot be said to be without application of mind as such. The fact as to whether the case as stated in the complaint is established is a matter for trial. In the circumstances, there is no substance even in this grievance of the Petitioner. 5 It is lastly contended that the complainant is not regularly attending the proceedings and the complaint has been filed only to harass the Petitioner. We are not impressed even by this submission. Inasmuch as, no roznama has been produced before us to indicate that the complainant or the prosecutor has failed to appear on the relevant dates. In any case, if the complainant or prosecutor fails to appear, it is open to the Petitioner to request the Court to pass appropriate order as may be advised. That cannot be the ground for quashing of the complaint as is prayed. 6 Taking any view of the matter, this petition is devoid of any merits, the same is dismissed. [ U.D. SALVI, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ]