1 (Apeal 1409 of 2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1409 OF 2011 Indur Kartar Chhugani ..Appellant Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. ..Respondents ----- Mr.Bhavesh Parmar for Appellant Mrs. P.H. Kantharia -APP for State Mr. Usha Srivastava i/b. M/s. Consulta Juris for Respondent No.2 Mr.Pankaj V. for Respondent No.1 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATE: 12th December, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, Respondents and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge dated 15.10.2011 in Misc. Application -Exhibit ‘1’ in MPID Case No.12 of 2005. The grievance of the Appellant is that the Special Court in the application filed by him seeking certain reliefs has, apart from dismissing the application, issued 2 (Apeal 1409 of 2011) further orders and further directions and, as such has passed the impugned order. The Appellant claims that he is in possession of flat Nos.501 and 502. According to him, he has purchased these properties in an auction from Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and this fact is seriously disputed by them. A complaint was filed against Rajkumar Basantani, Vinod Hingorani, Harisha Renumal Teckchandani and Sadhan Chakarovty. The accused gave a list of properties which belonged to them and one of the properties being Flat Nos.501 and 502 in Pinky Panorama Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., 6th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai- 400 052. It is the case of the Appellant that he has purchased the flats in an auction. 3. On the other hand, it is the case of the Respondents that they had broken the seal of the properties which was put by the MPID Court. It is contended by the Appellant that initially a notice was issued on 22.3.2005, asking him to explain why appropriate proceedings should not be initiated against them for removing the seal of the property by the order of this Court and for making illegal entry in the said flats. It is submitted that the proceedings under section 8 of the MPID Act are still pending. In an application filed by the Applicant seeking certain reliefs, the Special Judge has passed the 3 (Apeal 1409 of 2011) impugned order. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3 have submitted that several orders have been passed by various Courts and, as such, there is no illegality committed by the MPID Court. 5. Without going into rival contentions, after perusal of the impugned order, it can be seen that the Special Judge has not only dismissed the application filed by the Appellant, but has issued further directions. In the application which was filed by the Appellant, the following reliefs were claimed. “1. It may be declared that this Court will proceed with this matter further for passing complete reasoned order after giving full opportunities to both parties, and come to a clearing finding. Till that time Respondent No.1 & 2 be injuncted from taking any step for taking possession of 2 flats and interfering in the judicial process of this Court. 2. It may be declared that Respondent No.2 cannot be permitted to take the law in their hand and commit offences openly against anybody; Threat of committing offence itself is an offence and it is against the rule of law in 4 (Apeal 1409 of 2011) the country; and so Respodnent No. be injuncted from taking any step in pursuance of notice to the applicant Exhibit A. 3. The respondent no.1 & 2 be injuncted from tampering with the documents and fabricating false evidence against the applicant. 4. Notice Exhibit A of Respondent No.2 and Exhibit B and C Colly of Respondent No.1 be sent to police to investigate and submit report.” The Special Judge has not only dismissed the Misc. Application, but also has given the following other directions. “2. The applicant shall pay penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) to the State by depositing it in the office of this Court, within two (2) weeks from today, for filing this frivolous application in order to protract the trial under the MPID Act and interfere with the administration of justice. 3. The applicant and his family have been declared as trespassers in flat nos.501 and 5 (Apeal 1409 of 2011) 502 by the order of Hon'ble High court with further orders that he shall not be heard unless he vacates the said two flats. Hence the applicant along with his family shall vacate the said flats forthwith, and at the latest within two weeks from today. 4. The Investigating Officer is directed to pursue with the competent authority to attach and seal the property being flat nos.501 and 502 Pinky Panorama Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., 6 th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai – 400 052 under Section 8 of the MPID Act and report compliance to this Court on or before 01.12.2011. 5. Application Exhibit 1 is disposed off accordingly.” It is apparent that though the section 8 show cause notice is still pending, the Special Judge could not have given the directions which are at clause 2 to 4 of the impugned order. These directions, therefore, are quashed and set aside. Appeal is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of. Interim order passed by this Court is vacated. 5. The Special Judge, however, is directed to 6 (Apeal 1409 of 2011) expeditiously decide the proceedings which are pending under section 8 of the said Act. (M.L. TAHALIYANI J.) (V.M. KANADE J.)