1 WP 270.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 270 OF 2011 Mr. Shailesh Gulab Advani. ... Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Charanjeet Chanderpal for the Petitioner. Mrs. R.V. Newton, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 22nd SEPTEMBER 2011. P.C. :- Heard learned Counsel for the Original Complainant extensively. 2. A complaint was lodged before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 32nd Court, Bandra, Mumbai with a prayer for investigation in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The learned Judge, on 5th August 2009 did not accede for direction in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and asked the Complainant for verification of the complaint. The learned Judge has observed on going through the papers, the Complainant is not the owner of disputed premises/building. He also recorded dispute appearing is of civil in nature. 2 WP 270.11.sxw 3. The learned Counsel for the Complainant further submits that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and as also the learned Additional Sessions Judge lost track of the matter as the stand of the Complainant is the original deed of lease dated 19th March 2005 is changed by replacing its two pages and presenting the same for registration unilaterally, on 22.11.2005. The learned Counsel submits that the premises belong to M/s. Estate Enterprises and the Firm dissolved owing to death of Mr. Gulab Advani, the Partner in the Firm. 4. The learned Counsel submits, the Accused in the said complaint was indeed a Power of Attorney and making use thereof, he has sold 3/4 premises of the owner Gulab Advani. The Accused has later became an Advocate and matter was reported to Bar Council. 5. Without further adverting to the several litigations and submissions canvassed by the learned Counsel, the fact remains, there was apparently civil controversy between the litigants and it was not as simple as the learned Counsel attributes that there was change of two pages to the lease agreement. The refusal to send the matter for investigation in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was a just order as whatever could be the grievance of the Complainant was left to be addressed as verification was directed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The Complainant desire to influence upon the Accused in the said complaint by directing investigation in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. need not be further accelerated and I do not see any error on the part of 3 WP 270.11.sxw the learned Metropolitan Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge in not going in tune of requisition sought by the Complainant. Petition lacks merit. Dismissed. 6. The merits of the case are kept open. Any findings recorded by this Court is to be restricted for the present Application itself. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)