1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1598 OF 2009 Rajendra Diwan ..Petitioner versus Kochuput Henpambil Scaria James & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. K. S. Patil for Petitioner. Mr. M. S. Mhambrey for Respondent No. 1. Ms. A. T. Jhaveri – APP for State. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED : 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1. The petitioner has challenged the Order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, directing the Metropolitan Magistrate to make a complaint in writing and send it to the Metropolitan Magistrate having jurisdiction under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. 2. Having heard the learned counsel at length, I see no reason to interfere with the order, since it is admitted that ‘B’ Summary proceeding in the case is instituted by the petitioner against the respondent No. 1. This means that the police had closed the investigation in the case because the 2 petitioner had instituted a false case. Since the respondent No. 1 had been prosecuted in this manner, he preferred application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate who had taken cognizance of the offence against the respondent No. 1. The Magistrate rejected that application under Section 340 on the ground that the respondent No.1 has no locus standi. The appellate court whose order is impugned in this petition has rightly held that the respondent No.1 has locus standi. There can be no error found with the order of the appellate court since a person who has been falsely prosecuted undoubtedly has locus standi to make application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. 3. In addition, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that hearing of the complaint is at an advanced stage and closed for final arguments. 4. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the reasons enumerated above, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Petition is hereby dismissed. (S. A. BOBDE, J.)