1 WP.2081-2005.sxw Acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2081 OF 2005 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 372 OF 2006 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2081 OF 2005 Lakhi (Kari) Narayandas Mahija @ Kari ...Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. -- Mr. Subhash Jha i/b M/s Law Global, for the Petitioner. Mrs. A.S. Pai, for the State. Mr. Vinod Tayade, for Respondent No.3. -- CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. Reserved On: 22nd February, 2011. Declared On : 3rd March, 2011. P.C.: Heard. 2 The record reveals that, after hearing Shri Jha, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Rule only in respect of prayer clauses (c-1) and (c-2) was issued in the present Petition initially moved for quashing the crime registered at F.I.R. No. II/84/2005 dated 16.8.2005 under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Section 398 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act at Ulhasnagar Police 2 WP.2081-2005.sxw Station-1, Ulhasnagarin respect of 149 bags of plastic granules allegedly found in the premises of the Petitioner vide order dated 21.2.2006. The directions were issued to respondent nos.1 and 2 to register the complaint of the petitioner namely dated 24.6.2005 Exh.’A’ to the Petition and complaint dated 27.12.2005 Exh.’G’ to the Petition and to immediately embark upon investigation into the crime alleged in the said complaints. 2 The record further reveals that following the said directions vide order dated 21.2.2006, the crime at CR No. I/44/2006 under Sections 347, 506 and 34 of IPC, 1860 came to be registered against Suresh @ Pappu Budharmal Kalani at Ulhasnagar Police Station, District- Thane on 27.2.2006. It has been pointed out from the affidavit dated 19.8.2006 of Senior P.I. Shri Suryakant Gaikwad of Ulhasnagar Police Station that investigation in CR No. II/84/2005 under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Section 398 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act was completed and ‘B’ summary report was tendered before the Magistrate on 29.6.2006. The affidavit further reveals that pursuant to the orders in the present Petition two offences- CR No. 44/2006 under Section 347, 506, 34 of IPC, 1860 dated 15.6.2006, and CR No.45/2006 under Section 336,452,120B, 109, 506(2), 504, 352 of IPC, 3 WP.2081-2005.sxw 1860 dated 17.6.2006, were registered and detailed investigation carried out in respect of those offences did not reveal commission of any cognizable offence and therefore, NC final summary was recommended and the report accordingly were tendered before the learned J.M.F.C., Ulhasnagar in both the cases on 15.6.2006 and 17.6.2006 respectively, and the learned J.M.F.C., Ulhasnagar had accepted the said recommendation and the cases have been closed as non cognizable. 3 It is in this context Shri Jha, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the said cases were closed by the learned J.M.F.C., Ulhasnagar without hearing the Petitioner. Though the perusal of the record reveals receipt of written communication dated 15.6.2006 received by the Petitioner on 16.6.2006 regarding the outcome of the investigation conducted in the said cases, it nowhere reveals that the Petitioner had received any notice of hearing from the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Ulhasnagar before accepting the final reports filed in the said cases. 4 Before accepting the final reports recommending closure of the cases as NC cases it was incumbent to give notice of hearing to the 4 WP.2081-2005.sxw complainant/petitioner. 5 In this view of the matter, the learned J.M.F.C., Ulhasnagar shall reconsider the final reports viz. CR. No.44/2006 dated 15.6.2006 and CR no.45/2006 dated 17.6.2006 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing the Petitioner. The Petitioner waives service of notice of hearing in that regard and shall appear before the learned J.M.F.C., Ulhasnagar on 14th March, 2011 for the purposes of hearing on the said final reports. 6 In light of the orders passed, nothing survives in the present Petition and as such the Petition stands disposed off with no order as to costs. 7 In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, Criminal Application No.372 of 2006 does not survive and is disposed as such. (U. D. SALVI,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE,J.)