1 907.wp.1510.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ata CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1510 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 29 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.67/SW OF 2009 Mr. Jayesh C. Doshi .. Petitioner Vs. Mr. Virendra C. Doshi and Ors .. Respondents Mr. N. N. Vaishnawa i/by M/s. N.N. Vaishnawa and Co, for the Petitioner. Mr. H. H. Nagi i/by M/s H. H. Nagi and Associates,for the Respondent No.1 Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh APP for State. CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : 24.08.2011 P.C.: Heard. Notice. The Learned APP waives service for State. Mr. H. H. Nagi appears for Respondent No.1 waives service. Heard finally. 2 In on going partnership firm fued between two partners the real brothers, a complaint was filed by Respondent who is also facing several litigation. 3 The Respondent-Virendra moved the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate seeking action in terms of Section 156(3) of the Cr. P. C. He had even approached Police. The complaint was dismissed and the same was questioned before the Learned Sessions Judge,Greater Bombay at Sewree, in Criminal Revision No.29 of 2010. The Learned Judge by his order dated 2 907.wp.1510.11.sxw 8th April, 2011, allowed the revision and directed the Learned Magistrate to consider the case as prayed by the Respondent -Virendra and to apply his mind, decide the case denovo with reasoned order. This order of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge is questioned by the applicant- Jayesh. 4 During the course of submission though the Learned Counsel for the Respondent gave reference to the history of civil litigation and also to the Notice of Motion No.3108 of 2009 in Suit No. 2220 of 2009, however,it will not change colour and complexion of the matter at hand. 5 The learned counsel for the Respondent could not dwell upon the alleged act of intruding carried by the Petitioner to the partnership premises. Since it was partnership premises, even if controversies are pending in this court, till the dissolution, it cannot be said that the Petitioner has relinquished or foreclosed his rights in favour of Respondent. His alleged entry in office could not be a criminal offence by entering partnership firms. The observations of the Learned Sessions Judge in para 6 of transgressing powers by the Petitioner are contrary to law and even the record. 6 Taking survey of above facts, the order of directing the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate to pass appropriate order, calls for interference. Dismissal of the complaint was just and correct. Writ Petition allowed. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. )