1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1975 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.390 OF 2010 Mrs. Krishna S. Singh ...Petitioner. v/s. The State and Anr. ...Respondents. Mrs. Krishna S. Singh Petitioner in person present. Mr. P.S.Hingorani, APP For the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : MARCH 15, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the petitioner in person. She had filed complaint against three accused persons. Accused no.3 is the Assistant Labour Commissioner. According to the petitioner, she had come to Mumbai to make career in film industry as an art director. Accused nos.1 and 2 were to pay Rs.1,35,000/- to her. Accused nos.1 and 2 forged certain documents showing payment to her. They also threatened to kill her and harassed. The dispute went to the Assistant Labour Commissioner and he gave a report that payment of Rs.2,05,775/- was made by one Ajit Patnaik to the complainant. According to her, this report was based on the false and fabricated document created by the accused nos.1 and 2. She claims that she has been unnecessarily harassed by certain 2 publications and her reputation has been harmed. According to her, she is entitled to compensation from the accused persons. Her complaint was under Sections 405, 406, 465, 466, 467, 477A, 499, 500 r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C. Against accused no.3 complaint was of corruption and negligence in giving report. In view of the nature of the complaint, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 4th Court, Girgaon by the order dated 18.6.2010 directed investigation of the case under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. against the accused nos.1 and 2 only and refused to pass any order against the accused no.3 Assistant Labour Commissioner on the ground that in respect of the charges of corruption and alleged negligence , he could not pass any order for want of jurisdiction. That order is challenged in the present petition. If accused no.3 had indulged in corruption and if the complainant has any evidence about the same, she could approach either Anti Corruption Bureau or to the Special Court if the law permits. The petitioner made a statement before this Court that as no demand was made from her, she could not approach Anti Corruption Bureau. According to her, because accused no.3 had passed certain orders on the basis of forged and fabricated documents produced by the accused nos.1 and 2, she is of the opinion that accused no.3 had indulged in corruption. From this, it is 3 clear that she wants to draw inference against the accused no.3. If it is so, she could approach either Commissioner of Labour or to the Government of Maharashtra for taking any action, which could be permissible. 2 Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, I do not find any fault with the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. 3 Therefore, petition stands dismissed 4 As the petition itself is disposed off, Criminal Application No.390 of 2010 does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)