1 crwp2131 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2131 OF 2009 Mohanlal Kanhaiyal Chittora (Jain) ...Petitioner vs. Kapex Chemicals Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Kiran Kulkarni a/w Santosh Kyadipuppi and Pallavi Kumavat for the Petitioner Mr.Kishore Jain with Ms Nisha Parmar and Abha Gupta i/b Tushar Goradia for the respondent nos.2 and 3 Mr.A.R.Patil,A.P.P for respondent no.4-State CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This is a petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India by the petitioner who is the complainant in a private complaint. The petitioner filed a private complaint alleging commission of offences under section 405, 406, 415 and section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. After recording verification, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate declined to issue process on the ground that the dispute was of civil nature. A revision application was preferred by the petitioner before the Sessions Court. Revision application has been rejected. The challenge in this Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is to the aforesaid order. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner invited 2 crwp2131 the attention of the Court to the agreement dated 29th August 2006. He pointed out the averments made in the notice dated 20th March 2007 sent by the Advocate for the petitioner to the first respondent and reply dated 18th April 2007 sent by the attorney of the first respondent to the Advocate for the petitioner. He submitted that this is a clear case where a representation was made by the accused and the petitioner relying upon the said representation has made payments to Small Industries Development Bank of India. His submission is that this was a clear case where the offence of cheating was made out and therefore, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ought to have issued process. He pointed out that the dispute between the parties to the said agreement was referred for arbitration and there is already an award made in favour of the petitioner. 3 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The petitioner is relying upon the agreement dated 29th August 2006 executed by the first respondent-company which is an agreement for assigning leasehold rights of the first respondent in a plot held on lease by the first respondent from Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation. Taking the averments made in the complaint as it is, at highest, the case made out is that the first respondent has committed breaches of the terms and conditions of the said agreement. Even the notice issued by the petitioner alleges that the first respondent has committed breaches of the terms and conditions of the agreement. Therefore, the Courts below have rightly observed that the dispute between 3 crwp2131 the parties is purely of a civil nature and no case for proceeding against the accused persons for commission of offence has been made out. There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. JUDGE