1 WP 3288/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3288 OF 2009 Motilal Chandiram Bijlani & Anr. .... Petitioners Vs. Namdeo Sahu Rathod & .... Respondents The State of Maharashtra Mr. J.G. Bhanushali, Advocate for petitioners. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for State. Coram : SMT. R.P .SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 30th November, 2010 P.C. 1. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint No.325 of 2009 filed by the respondent and pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Vadgaon. The petitioners also seek quashing of the order dated 2nd September 2009 passed by the trial Court issuing the process against the petitioners in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 420 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. Copy of the complaint is annexed at page 51 of the petition. It appears that the petitioners are in the business of development of immovable “ 2 WP 3288/2009 properties”. Respondent no.1 is the civil contractor. The petitioners had assigned some work of construction to respondent no.1, for which purpose, agreements in writing had been executed between the two. Apparently there is some dispute as regards the payment made by the petitioners to the respondent. 2. In the month of June 2009, respondent no.1 filed private complaint for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(II), 406, 420 read with 34 Indian Penal Code against the petitioners alleging therein that the petitioners had without any reason stopped making payment of his charges. Consequently he was unable to pay his suppliers as also the labourers engaged by him. In the first week of February 2008, when respondent no.1 went to the site of the petitioners and demanded the amounts due to him, the petitioners abused/assaulted him and threatened to kill him. Thereafter also, from time to time, the petitioners have given threats to him over telephone that he would be either killed or maimed. Respondent no.1 had initially approached the Police who failed to take any action on his complaints. Therefore, he had filed private complaint in which after recording the statement in verification, the process came to be issued. 3 WP 3288/2009 3. Mr. Bhanushali, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate failed to appreciate that the real nature of the dispute between the parties is of civil nature. Respondent no.1 claims for balance of dues for the civil work done. Therefore, filing of criminal complaint, in respect thereof, is an abuse of process of law. He further, submits that the entire purpose of the complaint is to exert pressure on petitioner no.1 who is aged 80 years and residing with his son, petitioner no.2. 4. Perusal of the complaint and the statement in verification, shows that if the statements made therein are taken at their face value, they do constitute the offence alleged therein. Merely because the facts constituting the offence give rise to civil liability also it cannot be said that filing of the criminal complaint is an abuse of process of law. The inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code are to be used sparingly, where on reading the complaint as a whole, it appears to be a frivolous, vexatious or oppressive complaint. In the circumstance, this Court is not inclined to interfere either with the complaint or the order of issuance of process. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)