1 wp-1562-2011 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1562 OF 2011 Mr.Hemant S/o. Nagardas Gandhi ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents Mr.Mehul Rathod i/b. Mr.A.M.Saraogi for petitioner. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP for State. Ms.Prachi Khandge i/b. Mr.M.M.Vashi for resp.no.3. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. July 7, 2011. P.C. 1. It is clear that the petitioner had approached this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.1320 of 2010 for seeking directions to register an FIR. The said petition was disposed on 9th July, 2010 as withdrawn and by granting liberty to take recourse to appropriate alternative remedy. It was contemplated that the petitioner may file a private complaint. However, 2 wp-1562-2011 he approached the police station by his letter dated 5th May 2011 and misrepresented that by our order dated 9th July 2010 the police station was directed to register an FIR on the basis of his complaint. 2. Be that as it may, C.R.No.19 of 2011 has already been registered and the investigation is in progress as has been stated by Mr.Shinde, the learned APP on taking oral instructions. 3. The cause of action for this petition, therefore, is claimed to be the alleged acts of respondent no.3. The petitioner contends that respondent no.3 represented him that he runs a construction company in the name and style of M/s. Pramuk Properties and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Respondent no.3 negotiated and agreed to purchase the petitioner’s property on as is where is basis and issued a cheque of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) as a token amount subject to signing of the Memorandum of Understanding. However, respondent no.3 backed out of the transaction and directed the petitioner not to deposit the cheque of Rs.1,00,00,000/- and hence the deal between the petitioner and respondent no.3 could not materialise. A bald allegation has been made that as per the petitioner, respondent no.2 also intended to grab his 3 wp-1562-2011 property and accordingly started extortion and created nuisance on some occasions at the office of the petitioner. It is further alleged that respondent no.3 started demanding extortion money and managed to collect an amount of of Rs.95,00,00,000/- from him. It is his case that respondent no.3 is backed by known anti social elements and by showing deadly weapons he forced the petitioner to sign blank cheques as well as some documents. It is further claimed by the petitioner that the respondent no.2 is not registering a complaint against respondent no.3. In our view if the petitioner has any complaint against the respondent no.3, he is not prevented from filing a private complaint against the said respondent. 4. We are, therefore, satisfied that no case has been made out to entertain this petition and hence the petition is dismissed with liberty as is available in law. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)