- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2016 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.2016 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.2016 OF 2007 Usha Nandu Narang Dabhi ...Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Ms Shabana Shah i/b Mr.O.A.Siddiqui for the petitioner Ms P.P.Shinde A.P.P. for State Mr.M.S.Mohite for the Respondent No.2 CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : SEPTEMBER 2,2008 : SEPTEMBER 2,2008 : SEPTEMBER 2,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. With a view to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case in brief. . The petitioner had lodged a complaint with the police against the second respondent alleging commission of various offences. As no action was taken by the police authorities, the petitioner filed a private complaint alleging commission of offences under section 376, 420, 494, 313, 323, 504, 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code against the second Respondent. By order dated 23rd May 2007, the learned Magistrate purported to exercise power under section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 and stayed the proceeding of the complaint. 2. The submission made on the last date by the counsel for the petitioner was that there was no investigation in progress - 2 - against the second Respondent relating to the allegations made in the complaint. By order dated 31st August 2008, the learned A.P.P was directed to take instructions for ascertaining whether any such investigation was in progress. The learned A.P.P on instructions states that no investigation is in progress against the second respondent and the departmental enquiry has been initiated against the second Respondent in which he has been suspended. The learned counsel for the second Respondent states that he is not aware whether any such investigation is in progress or not. 3. The learned A.P.P. has made a statement that there is no investigation in progress against the second Respondent and only departmental proceedings are pending against the second Respondent. Therefore, on plain reading of the section 210 of the said Code, the said section will have no application. Hence, the impugned order will have to be quashed and set aside. 4. Hence, I pass the following order : i) The impugned order dated 23rd May 2007 is quashed and set aside. The pending complaint will proceed in accordance with law. ii) All contentions of the parties on merits of the pending complaint are expressly kept open. - 3 - JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE