1 264911 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY vgm CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITON NO. 2649 OF 2011 Omprakash S/o. Purshotamdas Gurbani ...Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the Petitioner Mr. A.S. Gadkari, A.P.P., for the State CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 2011 P.C.:- Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. 2. By this petition, it is prayed that MECR No. 13 of 2011 registered at Vile Parle Police Station be quashed. The said MECR has been registered on the basis of direction issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 26th July, 2011 in C.C. No. 190/SW of 2011. 2 264911 3. The first point raised before us is that the petitioner is only an employee of the Company. On perusal of the complaint, however, it appears that the petitioner represented to the complainant that he was Executive of Golden Century Food Stuff Trading LLC, Dubai; and, on that basis, deceived the complainant. The involvement of the petitioner has been referred to in the complaint. It is not a case where no allegation is found in the complaint against the petitioner. Whether that allegation is true or false, is a matter for investigation and trial. Going by the written complaint, on the basis of which, the Magistrate issued direction to the local police station to register an F.I.R. and proceed with the investigation in accordance with law, therefore, cannot be taken exception to. 4. The next argument of the petitioner is that no cause of action had arisen in Mumbai. The entire cause of action and transaction took place in Dubai. Even this submission does not commend to us. Reading the complaint as a whole, it appears that the cause of action, on the basis of which, the offence was accomplished, occurred in Mumbai. The complaint refers to those facts. Moreover, the complainant has his office in Mumbai, within the area of jurisdiction of Vile Parle Police Station. 3 264911 5. The third contention raised before us is that the complainant, Narendra Narayandas Pagarani, was not authorised to file the complaint. In fact, no firm exists by name Global Energy Food Industries. This, in our opinion, is a matter of defence available to the petitioner, and will have to be enquired into at the appropriate stage. The grounds, on which the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of MECR cannot be countenanced. 6. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation of the case and is free to disclose all matters, which, in his opinion, would warrant filing of appropriate police report before the concerned Court. Those matters will have to be considered by the Investigating Officer. For the present, suffice it to observe that no case for quashing of MECR has been made out. 7. Petition is dismissed. R.G. KETKAR, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.