1 cri-wp-500-501-11 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 500 OF 2011 AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 147 OF 2011 MSM Discovery Private Limited .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Senior Inspector of Police MIDC Police Station and 5 ors. .. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 501 OF 2011 AND CRIMINAL APPLICAION NO. 148 OF 2011 ESPN Software India Private Limited .. Petitioner Vs. Senior Inspector of Police, MIDC Police Station and 5 ors. .. Respondents Mr. S.V. Marwadi i/by Mr. Pradip J. Jaiswal for petitioner in both petitions. Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for State. Mr. R.D. Soni i/by M/s. Ram and Co. for Intervener in Cri.Appln. Nos. 147 and 148 of 2011. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. July 05, 2011. 2 cri-wp-500-501-11 P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Marwadi, the learned counsel for the petitioner-company. 2. In the earlier round, Criminal Writ Petition Nos.243 and 244 of 2011 filed by the present petitioner and another company by name ESPN Software India Private Limited came to be disposed off by a common order dated 4/2/2011. This court recorded the undertaking of Shri B. H. Salgaonkar, PSI, so as to record the statement of the complainant and proceed further, if a cognizable offence was disclosed in the said statement. 3. Accordingly, the nominee of the petitioner-company Shri Upendra Namdeo Jalgaonkar approached the PSI of MIDC Police Station, Andheri and his statement was recorded on 9/2/2011. We have perused the same. 4. As per the MIDC Police Station, after recording Mr.Jalgaonkar’s statement on 9/2/2011, the same was enquired into and on 3 cri-wp-500-501-11 21/2/2011 a report was submitted to the DCP to the effect that the dispute between the parties i.e. petitioner – company and Tunga International Private Limited is substantially of civil nature. 5. If the petitioner is not satisfied and still maintains that there was a cognizable offence made out, nothing stops the petitioner to move a private complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate of competent jurisdiction and seek appropriate orders. We, therefore, do not see any reason to entertain these petitions in the second round and the petitioner – company be relegated to the alternative remedy of filing a private complaint. 6. Hence the petitions are disposed with liberty to move a private complaint. 7. Criminal Application Nos. 147 and 148 do not survive and stand disposed as such. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)