- 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.1270 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1270 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1270 OF 2008 Nubail Thaika Shuaib ...Petitioner vs. Umapati Shambihari Tiwari & Anr. ...Respondents AND AND AND CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1271 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1271 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1271 OF 2008 Nabail Thaika Shuaib ...Petitioner vs. Karishma Impex & Another ...Respondents Mr.N.V.Walawalkar, Sr.Adv. i/b Mr.Sudhir Prabhu for the petitioner Mr.Y.S.Shinde A.P.P. for Respondent No.2-State Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar i/b M/s.Khandeparkar & Associates for Respondent No.1 CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : JULY 31,2008 : JULY 31,2008 : JULY 31,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the first Respondent and the learned A.P.P. for State. Considering the narrow controversy involved in these petitions, the same are taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. The first Respondent in both the petitions filed a Criminal Revision Applications under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 for challenging the notices issued by a Police Officer invoking section 149 of the said Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the Revision Applications and notices issued under section 149 of the said Code were quashed and set aside. The challenge in the petition is two fold. The first challenge is that the - 2 - petitioner-complainant ought to have been impleaded as a party-respondent to the revision applications. The second challenge is that a revision under section 397 of the said Code was not maintainable against the notice issued by a Police Officer under section 149 of the said Code. The learned counsel for the first Respondent opposes the petition and submits that no interference is called for. He pointed out that both the petitioner and the first respondent in these two petitions have filed applications under section 451 of the said Code before the learned Magistrate seeking custody of the goods subject matter of the controversy and both the applications are pending. He submits that in the event this court is inclined to interfere, hearing of both the applications may be expedited and till both the applications are disposed of, parties should be retrained from taking the custody of iron ore which is the subject matter of the dispute. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. On plain reading of section 397 of the said Code, a revision application under the said Code for challenging the notice issued by a police officer invoking section 149 of the said Code is not maintainable in law. Only on this ground, the impugned order will have to be quashed and set aside. 4. It is an admitted position that the applications filed by the petitioner and the first Respondent under section 451 of - 3 - the said Code are pending. The said applications will have to be decided expeditiously and till the time the said applications are not decided, restraint order will have to be passed against both the contesting parties. 5. Hence, I pass the following order : i) The Writ Petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). It is, however, clarified that the impugned order is set aside only on the ground that the revision applications were not maintainable and that this court has not considered the contentions advanced on merits. ii) The concerned court will dispose of the applications under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 filed by the petitioner as well as the first Respondent as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of an authenticated copy of this order. iii) Till the said applications are decided by the concerned court, both the petitioner and the first respondent are restrained from lifting the iron ore lying on the site. iv) All the contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open. v) Parties and the concerned court to act upon an - 4 - authenticated copy of this order. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE