* 1 * Cri.Appln. 4123.2010 2.12.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4123 OF 2010 Mr. Ramdas Nadkarni & Ors. .... Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents Mr. Harshad Bhadbhade, Advocate for applicants. Mr. Satish Gokarna, respondent no.2 in person Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 2nd December, 2010 P.C. 1. The three applicants herein file this application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of criminal complaint No. 1/SW/2010 filed by respondent no.2 and the order dated 1st January 2010 passed thereon by the Court of Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 18th Court, Girgaum. 2. Respondent no. 2 has appeared in person. The applicants are the officers of NKGSB Co-op. Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “ bank”). Applicant no. 1 is the Senior Manager, applicant no. 2 is the Junior Officer and applicant no. 3 is the Assistant General Manager of the bank. * 2 * Cri.Appln. 4123.2010 2.12.2010 The submissions advanced by both the sides and the record disclose a long standing friction between them leading to several complaints to different authorities and proceedings in Courts of law. 3. The bank is the owner of a building by name Laxmi Sadan” at “ Girgaon, Mumbai. Respondent no.2 is the occupant of flat no.17 in the building. The building being old, the bank had taken up the work of repairs and renovation of the same. According to respondent no.2, the nature of the work being actually carried out was unauthorised and the manner, in which the same was being carried out, caused nuisance to him. He had, therefore, made complaints to the Municipal as well as Police authorities. Thereafter on 29th December 2008, an agreement was arrived at between the respondent no.2 and the Chairman of the bank and another agreement dated 16th July 2009 with the C.E.O. of the bank. Under the two agreements, assurances were given to respondent no.2 that all future repairs and reconstruction/renovation work that would be undertaken by the bank would be closely monitored to avoid any nuisance, hardship, damage and inconvenience to anybody and all mandatory precautions specified by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation would be taken by the bank. Pursuant to the agreements, respondent no.2 withdrew all his legal notices and complaints made to various authorities. 4. Respondent no.2 complains that thereafter when the bank resumed * 3 * Cri.Appln. 4123.2010 2.12.2010 the work of renovation, the work was continued contrary to the mutual agreements arrived. He alleges that it was agreed by the CEO and the Chairman of the Bank that the work of repairs and renovation would start every day at about 8.00 am. and stop at 7.00 p.m. with a break between 1.00 pm. to 2.00 pm. On 18th December 2009, when the work continued upto 8.00 p.m., respondent no.2 complained to the Police. When the officers of D.B. Marg Police Station arrived at the site, applicants no.1 and 2 also came. They abused, threatened and intimidated respondent no.2 with dire consequences. On the same day at about 10 p.m., respondent no.2 received threats over telephone. According to the complaint, applicant no.3 cheated respondent no.2 by dishonouring the agreement. With the above allegations, respondent no.2 filed the complaint herein alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code against applicants no. 1 and 2 and the offences punishable under Sections 420, 425, 426 and 427 Indian Penal Code against applicant no.3. The statement and verification of respondent no.2 was recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 1st January 2010. On the same day, he passed order in following terms : On verification of complaint and documents produced on “ record, I hold that further inquiry is necessary to see whether there are just and sufficient grounds for proceeding or not. Hence case be sent to D.B. Marg Police Station and Police Officer is directed to inquire the case vide Section 202 of Cr.P.c. and report r/o 2/2/2010.” * 4 * Cri.Appln. 4123.2010 2.12.2010 5. Pursuant to the directions given, the Senior Inspector of D.B. Marg Police Station submitted report dated 3rd July 2010 to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The report submitted supports the complaint by respondent no.2. The report states that the bank had commenced unauthorised work of construction of platform in the open space on the rear side which was brought to the notice of the concerned authorities by respondent no.2. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation had issued Stop “ Work” notice to the bank. It had similarly carried out unauthorised work of ceiling which it later got regularised by paying fine of Rs.80,000/-. The report mentions the complaints of respondent no.2 made on 9th March, 2009, 3rd May, 2009 and 4th May, 2009 about the work being continued upto 10.30 p.m. and past midnight respectively. As regards the incident of 18th December, 2009, the report states that it had occurred in the presence of police. 6. Mr. Bhadbhade, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that the complaint filed by the respondent no.2 is a frivolous complaint. It is alleged that respondent no.2 is in the habit of filing frivolous complainants against the bank with an intention to extort money from the bank and for that purpose he has been using police machinery. The learned counsel, points out that, earlier whenever respondent no. 2 had made complaints, a settlement had been arrived at under which the bank had paid money to * 5 * Cri.Appln. 4123.2010 2.12.2010 him. Respondent no. 2 does not dispute the fact of settlement arrived, as also, payment of amounts. He, however, submits that the amount of Rs. 27,000/- paid to him was merely by way of reimbursement of legal expenses incurred by him and the amount of Rs.7,500/- was paid by way of compensation for damage to the external wall and the door of his premises. He vehemently denies that the complaints have been filed by him in order to extort money from the bank. He claims to be a person of substantial means. He is an Architect by profession having his offices not just in India, but, in other countries as well. He does not need to file any complaint in order to extort any money from anybody. 7. I have perused the complaint and the report filed by the Police. It is obvious from the complaint, as well as, the report submitted by the police that there have been serious complaints raised by respondent no.2 as regards the nature of the work of renovation and the manner in which the same has been carried out by the bank. In the circumstances, the respondent no. 2 was well within his rights to complain to the different authorities. These acts on the part of respondent no. 2 cannot be said to be acts which are either frivolous or vexatious or malafide. Coming to the payments made by the bank to respondent no.2, the same is obviously not any hush-hush money paid. It has been openly and officially paid by the bank for which regular receipts have been issued by respondent no.2. On a * 6 * Cri.Appln. 4123.2010 2.12.2010 prima-facie view, the bank cannot be allowed to grumble about it. Apparently, respondent no.2 is a successful professional for whom there is no need to resort to extortionism. Besides, considering the quantum of the amount paid and the reason for payment, there hardly appears any gain for respondent no.2. The payment was by way of reimbursement of expenses incurred. In any case, the record shows that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has been careful and cautious in proceeding with the matter. After recording the statement in verification, he had directed enquiry by the police. 8. It is well established that, the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, are to be used sparingly only to avoid abuse of process of law or in order to meet the ends of justice. The Apex Court has in the case of State of Haryana and others V/s. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT, page 604, laid down the circumstances under which the inherent powers are to be exercised. At paragraph-108 of the judgment, the Apex Court says as under : In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various “ relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently * 7 * Cri.Appln. 4123.2010 2.12.2010 channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on * 8 * Cri.Appln. 4123.2010 2.12.2010 the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” The case on hand falls under none of the circumstances enumerated. This Court is not satisfied that filing of the complaint by respondent no. 2 is an abuse of process of law. In the circumstance, the application is dismissed. (Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,J)