1 wp970.11.group.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Writ Petition No. 970 of 2011 WITH Criminal Writ Petition No. 971 of 2011 WITH Criminal Writ Petition No. 972 of 2011 WITH Criminal Writ Petition No. 973 of 2011 WITH Criminal Writ Petition No. 974 of 2011 WITH Criminal Writ Petition No. 975 of 2011 WITH Criminal Writ Petition No. 976 of 2011 WITH Criminal Writ Petition No. 977 of 2011 WITH Criminal Writ Petition No. 978 of 2011 WITH Criminal Writ Petition No. 979 of 2011 WITH Criminal Writ Petition No. 980 of 2011 WITH Criminal Writ Petition No. 981 of 2011 WITH Criminal Writ Petition No. 982 of 2011 WITH Criminal Writ Petition No. 983 of 2011 Mrs. Mumtaz Shoeb Shaikh & anr. ....Petitioners v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the petitioners. Mr. A.H.H. Ponda for respondents 2 and 3. Mr. Y.M. Nakhawa-APP for the State. 2 wp970.11.group.sxw CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 4th July, 2011 PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 18th February, 2011 vide which the criminal revision application filed by the respondent no.2 herein was allowed. With an allegation that the respondent no. 3 who happens to be the husband of the petitioner no. 1 had misappropriated huge amount of a company owned by respondent no.2 and her husband, a crime came to be registered by respondent no.1. During the investigation the Investigating Agency has prima-facie come to a conclusion that 14 immovable properties were purchased by the present petitioners out of that fund. Accordingly, the Investigating Agency has seized the property. An application came to be filed by the respondent no.2 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in CC NO. 363/N/209 for return of the said property. The said application was rejected. However, by an impugned order the learned Session Judge has allowed the application filed by the respondent no.2. Being aggrieved thereby the present petition. 3. Shri Saraogi, the learned Counsel submits that Full Bench of this Court has held that the immovable property cannot be seized under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Sessions Court is not sustainable in law. 4. Shri Ponda, the learned Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submits that seizor is not under Section 102 and 105 and therefore no fault could be found 3 wp970.11.group.sxw with the orders. 5. Admittedly, a Civil Suit between the parties is pending before this Court being Suit No. 461/2010. In that view of the matter, I find that since the rights of the parties would be adjudicated by the Civil Court, every finding in the present criminal proceedings would not be in the interest of either of the parties. 6. In the result the following order:- O R D E R The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The petitioner no.1 and 2 shall deposit compensation received by them in the proceedings in Suit No. 461/2010. The parties would be at liberty to apply to the learned Judge in accordance with law in the said Suit No. 461/2010 for further orders regarding the said properties Needless to state that until appropriate orders are passed by the learned Civil Judge in the proceedings of the said Suit No. 461/2010, neither the petitioners nor respondent no.2 shall deal with the said property in any manner and would maintain status-quo in respect thereof. 7. All the petitions disposed of on aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. (B.R. GAVAI, J)