IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MCA No.26 of 2001. MCA No.26 of 2001. MCA No.26 of 2001. Mr. Goolam E. Vahanavati ..Appellant versus Shankar Babu s/o. Babu Varsha & Another ..Respondents Shri K.K.Tated a/w. S.R.Borulkar, G.P. for the appellant. Shri J.G.Damani for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Coram : Swatanter Kumar, C.J. & Coram : Swatanter Kumar, C.J. & Coram : Swatanter Kumar, C.J. & J.P. Devadhar, J. J.P. Devadhar, J. J.P. Devadhar, J. Dated : 17th March, 2008 Dated : 17th March, 2008 Dated : 17th March, 2008 P.C. 1. This petition was filed by the Advocate General, State of Maharashtra, under Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation Prevention Act, 1971. It was prayed that the Court be pleased to pass an Order directing that no proceeding, Civil or Criminal shall be instituted by the Respondent in any court without previous leave of the Court and all proceedings instituted by him as described in Schedule "R" be stayed. During the course of hearing, a complete chart was filed on behalf of the State which indicated that as many as six proceedings had been started/initiated by the Respondent in this petition. After some arguments, -2- the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent stated that except the proceeding stated at serial nos.5 and 6, he does not wish to pursue any of the proceedings initiated by him before the Court of Competent Jurisdiction. Thus, all other proceedings are given up by the Respondent and thus are ordered to be closed under this Order. . Item Nos. 5 & 6 of that chart are the following proceedings: 5. Criminal Complaint 66/S/2000 in 26th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Borivli. ...Shankar Babu vs. Gamatkumari B. Seth & Ors. 6. Review Application No.2/C/2000 for admission. ...Smt. Savitri Nanu Dhodi & Ors. vs. Smt. Gamatkumari B. Seth & Ors. As far as the review application in the suit is concerned, the learned Counsel appearing for the -3- State submitted that he has instructions to state before the Court that applicant will have no objection if the proceedings before the Civil Court are continued in accordance with law, but however be decided expeditiously. Resultantly, in view of the common statement made, we direct that review application filed in the suit shall continue in accordance with law and the concerned court of Competent Jurisdiction is requested to dispose of the matter expeditiously. 2. Lastly, so far as Criminal Complaint 66/S/2000 pending before 26th Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivli, is concerned, after hearing the parties, and particularly the stand taken on behalf of the State, we direct that the proceedings which are presently pending before the 26th Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivli, shall be proceeded with in accordance with law with utmost expeditiousness. Liberty to the State/ private parties to file application for discharge as it is contended even before this Court that in view of the orders passed by the Civil Court and the complaint read in its entirety does not disclose any cognizable offence. Resultantly, the same should be rejected and the -4- Government Officials who have been impleaded unnecessarily should be acquitted/discharged. 3. It is also contended that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court Gangula Ashok & Gangula Ashok & Gangula Ashok & Another v. State of A.P. JT 2000(1) SC 379 Another v. State of A.P. JT 2000(1) SC 379 Another v. State of A.P. JT 2000(1) SC 379 the Special Court would have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the complaint should be limited to the said Court by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of Section 193 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. To this there is no dispute so far as even the complainant is concerned. Resultantly, we direct that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate shall deal with the matter expeditiously, and if an application for discharge is filed before him, the same shall also be referred to the Court of Special Judge in accordance with the provisions of The Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, who shall decide the same expeditiously. 5. Petition disposed of. Parties to bear their own costs. -5- ( Chief Justice.) ( Chief Justice.) ( Chief Justice.) (J.P.Devadhar, J.) (J.P.Devadhar, J.) (J.P.Devadhar, J.)