hvn 12//appln/5547.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5547 OF 2010 Sunil Dataram Ravgan and Ors. ... Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Mrs. Jaimala Raut and Krishna Parvatikar i/by M/s. J.J. Associates, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Rajesh More, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 P.C. Heard the learned counsel. Perused the affidavit of Anil Kharade, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vakola Division, Mumbai opposing the application. The applicants are residents of Chemburkarwadi, Nanda Patkar Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai. The building in question was purported to be developed and it is apparent that the applicants had 1 hvn 12//appln/5547.10 controversy with the builder/developer which gave rise to the prosecution by the applicants as well as builder/developer. In the year 2009, based on some identical controversies, show cause notice was issued by the police of Vakola concerning chapter proceedings. The mater was moved to this court in Criminal Application No. 4388 of 2009 and by order dated 8.9.2010 this court found that the period mentioned in the notice of six months expired during the pendency of the said Criminal Application and consequently the proceedings has turned to be infructuous. Today also the learned A.P.P. informs that the notices in the present case are of 11.10.2010 and 12.10.2010 and by virtue of six months period, the effect of notices are elapsed and the action contemplated by the present criminal application has become infructuous. The learned counsel for the applicant submits, the respondent had developed a grudge in league with the builders to harass the petitioners. She points petitioner no. 1 is teacher while petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are conducting cycle repairing business. They have no other criminal record 2 hvn 12//appln/5547.10 barring one they are facing with the builder/developer. It is seen from the record that the petitioners feel that their valuable rights in the property are being transgressed, encroached upon and mutilated by the efforts of the builder as contractor of the building. Consequently, in order to get redressal of their legitimate rights, applicants had on occasions put logical restraints to the builder's acts. Putting such logical restraint by itself will not amount to any criminal action or involving infraction of penal provisions as 324 read with 34 of I.P.C. The applicants are facing the said prosecution. They have to answer the same at appropriate places/court(s). The fact remains, the notices calling upon the applicants to furnish security at page 28, in terms of section 110(g) of Cr.P.C. were warranted or not. Giving reference of pendency of Crime No. 319 of 2010 dated 25.5.2010 may be correct event. However, for that purpose, the law will take its own course against the applicants. Asking them additionally to furnish surety, is not desirable. The court concerned is bound to slap conditions upon the applicants when they face the prosecution as accused. The action initiated by the learned A.C.P. of the region at the material time generates impression that to overcome earlier notices and court orders, 3 hvn 12//appln/5547.10 subsequent exercise of show notice dated 11.10.2010 and 12.10.2010 have been caused. I do not see any reason to justify said reasons. Even otherwise, time mentioned therein has elapsed. The action is certainly erroneous. The notices impugned are quashed and set aside. Application disposed of accordingly. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) 4