((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.807 OF 2008 Hemendra Ramprasad Sharma Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.A.B.Mishra for petitioner Mr.Sanjay Shukla i/by Ms.Shruti Desai for respondent no.2. Ms.S.D.Shinde, AGP for State. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND A.A.KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATE : 24th October 2008 PC : 1. The petitioner has filed this petition basically seeking to quash and set aside the FIR bearing CR No.129 of 2007 registered against the petitioner under sections 143, 145, 147, 149, 452, 341, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has also sought a direction directing the Commissioner of Police - the third respondent herein to take necessary action against fourth and fifth respondents who are Police Inspectors, for their alleged irrational and illegal manner of handling the case which according to the petitioner has ((-2-)) caused harassment to the petitioner and his licences. 2. The petitioner claims to be a financier/ investor whose business is to invest, inter alia, in real estate. The sixth respondent herein is a developer. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner invested his monies into a project undertaken by the predecessors of sixth respondent which involved construction of residential flats. According to the petitioner, after completing the project, the petitioner was to get certain number of residential flats. Whereas, it is the defence of the sixth respondent that the flats to which the petitioner is claiming rights, were to be only a security for the monies advanced by the petitioners to the sixth respondent, which was to be returned by the sixth respondent to the petitioner. Disputes have arisen between the petitioner and the sixth respondent in regard to the aforesaid transaction, as a result of which both of them have taken recourse to the civil as well as criminal proceedings against each other. The present petition arises out of ((-3-)) the criminal complaint lodged with the Police by the sixth respondent against the petitioner. 4. We need not refer to the details of the proceedings initiated by the petitioner and sixth respondents against each other, either civil or criminal. The sixth respondent herein has filed Civil Suit bearing No.2194 of 2007 on the original side of this Court. In that suit, on 10th August 2007, a learned Single of this Court has passed an order appointing Court Receiver in respect of Flat Nos.301, 501, 503, 504, 701, 702, 801, 802, 803 and 804. A copy of this order has been produced as Exhibit-I at page 156 of the compilation of the petition. 5. On 13th August 2007 i.e. just three days after passing of the aforesaid order appointing the Receiver, the sixth respondent has filed the FIR in issue which the petitioner is seeking to quash by this writ petition. A perusal of this complaint shows that according to the complainant on 13th August 2007 some unknown persons have broke open the locks and attempted to forcibly enter and thereby obtain forcible possession of flat nos.301, 501, 701 and 702. It is the case of the complainant ((-4-)) that the complainant also his security guards were physically assaulted. According to him, a criminal tress-pass has been committed. The complaint discloses such allegations which, prima facie, if true, amount to commission of cognizable offence. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner drew our attention to the complaint filed by the petitioner against the sixth respondent. However, in our view, the complaint of the petitioner is not at all relevant for consideration of the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in regard to the complaint filed by the sixth respondent herein. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this is not a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction u/s.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quash the FIR bearing CR No.129 of 2007 filed by the sixth respondent. 8. However, we make it clear that it will be open for the petitioner to apply for discharge and that in case if such an application is filed by the petitioner, the same will be ((-5-)) considered on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made by us in this order. 9. With the aforesaid clarification, the petition is dismissed. (A.A.KUMBHAKONI, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)