vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.265 OF 2000 WRIT PETITION NO.265 OF 2000 WRIT PETITION NO.265 OF 2000 M/s.Bay Isle Developers Private Ltd. & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & 2 Ors. ... Respondents Mr.A.G. Damle for Petitioners Mr.D.P. Adsule, APP, for Respondent-State CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: APRIL 8, 2008 APRIL 8, 2008 APRIL 8, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: . The petition has been filed in order to quash and set aside the summons case No.516/S of 1995 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. The petitioners have been charged with committing offences u/s 380, 467, 471, 193 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In March 1995, the Petitioners negotiated with Respondent No.2 for the purchase of his land at Malad, Mumbai. The Petitioners claim that on 8.4.1995 they met the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. The Petitioners had a pay order issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce with them in order to establish their bonafides for purchasing the plot. They expected Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to give them inspection of the title deeds. However, the title deeds were not produced and instead, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 stole the pay order, according to the petitioners. A complaint was lodged with the police and instructions were issued to Oriental Bank of Commerce to cancel the : 2 : pay order on 15.4.1995. Thereafter several legal proceedings ensued between the petitioners and Respondent No.2 Summary Suit No.1862 of 1995 was filed by Respondent No.2 against the Oriental Bank of Commerce. The petitioners, on their application, were impleaded in the summary suit. Thereafter the petitioners took out a Chamber Summons wherein they prayed for certain documents which were in the custody of the plaintiff i.e. Respondent NO.2 herein, to be produced in Court. One of the documents sought was the agreement dated 8.4.1995 referred to in the complaint which was allegedly entered into between the Respondent No.2 and the petitioners. This Chamber Summons was allowed and Respondent No.2 was directed to furnish a copy of the agreement to the petitioners. A Notice of Motion was then taken out by the petitioners seeking an order to impound certain documents including the aforesaid agreement, a photocopy of which was furnished to the petitioners. However, inspection of the original was not given to them. The petitioners also prayed in the Motion for an order directing the appointment of an handwriting expert to verify the signatures of Petitioner No.2 on the documents. The handwriting expert has submitted his report on 2.9.1995 and has found that signatures of Petitioner No.2 are forged. Soon thereafter, on 18.9.1995, the incident due to which the complaint has been filed, allegedly took place. The : 3 : contention of the complainant who was the constituted attorney of Respondent No.2 is that on 18.9.1995, the petitioners came to his residence indicating that they wanted to settle the dispute in suit No.1862 of 1995 and asked him to show the agreement. Petitioner No.3 then took out a revolver and allegedly kept it on the mouth of Respondent No.3 and threatened to shoot him. Respondent No.3 has then stated in his complaint that all three accused assaulted him with kicks and fist blows. 3. In these circumstances, he lodged the complaint under sections 307, 394, 450 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Nobody appears for the respondent Nos.2 and 3, though served. 5. It is apparent from the facts on record that the entire dispute has arisen due to civil litigations pending between Respondent No.2 and the petitioners. Admittedly, Respondent No.2 has expired. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that no steps have been taken by the heirs of Respondent No.2 to be impleaded in the civil suit. That suit has therefore abated. : 4 : 6. The allegations in the complaint are made obviously because of the civil litigation in which Respondent No.2 was directed to furnish a copy of the agreement dated 8.4.1995 and to give inspection of the original. That order was passed on 29.6.1995. Soon thereafter, on 18.9.1995, the present complaint has been filed. It is apparent from the proceedings that the complaint is a fall out of the civil proceedings between Respondent No.2 and the petitioners. The petitioners had no dealings with Respondent No.3 who was the constituted attorney of Respondent No.2. Therefore, the allegation that Respondent No.3 has made in his complaint do not seem to be genuine but are apparently a result of orders passed against Respondent No.2 in the civil proceedings. In these circumstances, summons case No.516/S/1995 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, is quashed and set aside. 7. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.