1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION (MAIN) NO.87 OF 2011 AND CRIMINAL MISCE. APPLICATION NO.114/2011 CRIMINAL APPLICATION (MAIN) NO.87 OF 2011 Stemens Limited .. Applicant Versus State of Goa and Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Girish Kulkarni and Mr. Akshay Vani, Advocates for the applicants. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1. Mr. V. Rodrigues, Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.1(a). AND CRIMINAL MISCE. APPLICATION NO.114/2011 Mr. Roque Pinto and Anr. .. Applicants Versus Siemens India Limited Through Its Director and Anr... Respondents Mr. Nigel D'Costa Frias and Ms. Malar, Advocates for the applicants. Mr. Girish Kulkarni and Mr. Akshay Vani, Advocates for respondent no.1 Mr. C. A. Ferriera, Public Prosecutor for respondent no.2. Mr. V. Rodrigues, Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.3. Coram :- A. P. Lavande, J. Date : - 18 th July, 2011 2 P.C. Heard Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1 and Mr. Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.1(a) in Criminal Application (Main) No.87/2011 and Mr. Costa Frias, learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for respondent no.1, Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent no.2 and Mr. Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.3 in Criminal Misce. Application No.114/2011. 2. By this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicants challenge the F.I.R. No.52/2011 dated 23rd April, 2011 registered at Verna Police Station under Section 17A of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 as amended and under Section 188 of I.P.C. According to the learned Counsel, the prosecution in respect of both the offences is not maintainable in as much as no prima facie case has been made out in respect of the said offences and in any case, in respect of the offence under Section 188 of I.P.C. there is absolutely no material on record. 3 3. Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent no.1 in CRMAM No.87/11 and for respondent no.2 in CRMA No.114/2011 ('the respondent- State' for short) states that the respondent - State would complete the investigation within a period of four weeks and they would take into consideration the contentions raised on behalf of the applicants and file either chargesheet or report as the case may be depending upon the outcome of the investigation. 4. Although the learned Counsel for the applicants have submitted that no offence, even prima facie, is made out under Section 17A of the Town and Country Planning Act and under Section 188 of I.P.C. However, it is for the Investigating Agency to find out after carrying out proper investigation as to whether prima facie these offences are made out against the applicants. I expect the respondent – State to carry out investigation in the right earnest and take appropriate action in accordance with Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. Needless to mention that the respondent - State shall take into consideration the grievances made by the applicants in the present application while investigating the offences pursuant to the aforementioned F.I.R. 4 5. In view of the above and in view of the statement made by the learned Public Prosecutor, I am not inclined to entertain the applications at this stage under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R. However, the statement made by the learned Public Prosecutor that they would either file chargesheet or the report within four weeks, is accepted. Accordingly, Criminal Application (Main) no.87/2011 and Criminal Misce. Application No.114/2011 stand disposed of. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA