1 2947.11 SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2947 OF 2011 Nitin Nagarji Mehta ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Samir A.Vaidya for Petitioner. Mrs.S.D.Shinde, A.P.P. for Respondent-State. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATED:- DECEMBER 12, 2011. P.C. 1. Counsel for the petitioner in the first place submitted that the petitioner is not contactable for quite some time. In other words, he has no instructions in the matter. However, as the matter was listed today, we called upon him to argue the matter on merits, which he did in all fairness. He tried to persuade us that in law, even at the instance of the complainant this Court can quash the F.I.R. It is not necessary for us to enter the wide questions raised by the petitioner. 2. In the present case, the offence alleged is under Sections 465, 467, 468, 479, 420, 454, 457, 448 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The fact that 2 2947.11 the property referred to in the said complaint has now been returned back to the petitioner, by itself, in our considered opinion, can be no ground for quashing of F.I.R. at the instance of the complainant. In the present case, learned A.P.P. submits that investigation is almost complete and the Investigating Officer is in the process of filing police report against the available accused. One of the named accused is absconding. It is not the case of the petitioner in the present case that the F.I.R. as registered by the M.I.D.C. Police Station, Mumbai is incorrect or a false statement has been recorded, or that it has been registered in his name under pressure. In that situation, merely because the petitioner now informs the Court that the property in question has been returned, can be no basis to quash the F.I.R. 3. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the unreported decision of this Court in the case of Arun Gulab Gawali vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Criminal Writ Petition No.3169/2005 and connected cases decided on 27th July, 2006. Even in that case, one of the connected Petition was filed by the complainant himself for quashing of F.I.R. as is noted in paragraph 4 of the Judgment. According to the leaned Counsel for the petitioner, this Judgment has attained finality and even the Supreme Court has affirmed the same. However, what has been glossed over by the learned 3 2947.11 Counsel for the petitioner is that the F.I.R. was eventually quashed primarily at the instance of the accused and not the complainant. As regards the complainant, his case was that he was forced to lodge F.I.R. by the Police against the accused by detaining him in custody. The unreported decision which is pressed into service, in our opinion, has no application to the fact situation of the present case. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 4. We place on record the assurance given by the Investigating Officer through learned A.P.P. that police report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code is being filed before the concerned Court within one week from today. That assurance is accepted. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)