1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1397 OF 2009 Mr.Bhaskar S/o. Totaram Mawalkar : Petitioner (Orig.Complainant) V/s. Anusayabai Dnyanoba Barate & Ors. : Respondents (Orig.Accused) .... Mr.A.M. Saraogi for the petitioner. Mrs.R.V.Newton, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2009. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dated 27.4.2009 dismissing his revision. 2. The petitioner had challenged the order of the learned Magistrate refusing to take cognizance of his complaint on the ground of jurisdiction. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge observed that it was not proper for the Magistrate to simply dismiss the complaint on the ground of jurisdiction and if there was any objection, it was for the Magistrate to return the 2 complaint for presentation to proper Court. However, the Sessions Court has gone into the matter and has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complaint does not disclose an offence as alleged. 3. The petitioner had preferred a complaint under sections 406, 420, 120-B, 114 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of property which he has purchased sometime in the year 1993 from the accused. The accused had apparently duly registered a conveyance and the petitioner’s name was also mutated in the 7/12 extracts and other documents. According to the petitioner, he learnt in the year 2007 that the original document was lost and when he visited the site for the first time in May 2008, he found that several bungalows were constructed on the plot purchased by the complainant. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has observed that it was difficult to believe that after purchasing the property in the year 1993, the petitioner did not visit the property even once till the year 2008 and that the accused could not have dealt with the property in any case after he executed the conveyance and the registration in the year 1993 and after the revenue record was also duly mutated in the name of the petitioner. The learned Addl. Sessions has further observed that the petitioner has not stated to whom the property is said to have been sold by the accused. The Court has, therefore, observed that the petitioner has only levelled wild allegations in respect of the transfer of the property but 3 has not produced any material before the learned Magistrate. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that this was not a proper case for taking cognizance of the offence, though the Magistrate dismissed the complaint on a different ground. 4. Having heard Mr.Saraogi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of view that it is not necessary to disturb the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge since on the basis of the complaint and the circumstances of the case, the Court has come to the conclusion that the commission of an offence has not been made out. In the circumstances of the case, it is not necessary to interfere. The Writ Petition is dismissed. S.A. BOBDE, J.