- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1536 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1536 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1536 OF 2008 Shyamkant Nathu Bhat ...Petitioner vs. Shashikant Bapat & others ...Respondents Mr.O.R.Tiwari for the petitioner Mr.Y.S.Shinde A.P.P. for State CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : JULY 31,2008 : JULY 31,2008 : JULY 31,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the Advocate for the petitioner. The petitioner filed a private complaint alleging commission of offence under sections 406, 420, 120-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation of the petitioner is that through the first Respondent he was introduced to second respondent who was the owner of a flat. There were negotiations and ultimately the petitioner agreed to purchase the flat at the price of Rs.8,00,000/- and an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid by pay order and remaining amount was paid in cash. An agreement for sale was executed by the petitioner and the second respondent and the same was registered. The petitioner was placed in possession of the said flat. 2. Now, an allegation is made in the complaint that the price of the flat is at the most 4,00,000/- or 4,50,000/-. Therefore, notice was issued by the petitioner calling upon - 2 - the second respondent to refund a sum of Rs,4,00,000/-. 3. An order was passed under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. Police submitted a report stating that offence was not made out. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed and the revision application filed by the Petitioner also stands dismissed. 4. The petitioner voluntarily purchased the flat and even according to him he voluntarily paid a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- and has signed the agreement which has been registered. The petitioner has acted upon the agreement by entering possession of the flat. 5. In the circumstances, the Courts below were right in holding that the petitioner could have rescinded the contract in case he was not agreeable to the the consideration fixed in respect of the flat. No case is made out for interference in the Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE