1 Cri. Application No.4016 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Application No.4016 Of 2008 Nawaz Ahmed Kalim Ahmed Sidhiqui And Others. ... Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. K.S. Bhore, Advocate, for the applicants. Shri. V.D. Rakh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.1. Shri. P.R. Adkine, Advocate, for respondent No.2. -------- CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 28th JUNE 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1) Heard. The learned counsel attacks worth of the complaint filed by the respondent before the leaned Judicial Magistrate for an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Magistrate issuing process against the applicant / accused for the said offence by order dated 15-12-1999. 2 Cri. Application No.4016 of 2008 2) Mr. Bhore by reading the complaint submits that property which the complainant has purchased is altogether different and the property purchased by the applicant / accused has no matching to it. Consequently no element of cheating. 3) At this stage of the matter the contentions of the learned counsel are difficult to digest as in spite of knowledge of possession of the complainant over the property as owner since 1980 the accused inter se by conspiracy in order to deceive, harass and humiliate the complainant have purchased portion of the property to the extent of South – North 25 ft and East – West 20 ft. with the boundaries as given in the complaint by sale deed dated 25-7-1994 which the complainant allegedly learnt since he was called at the police station and was required to suffer said prosecution vide Crime No.106 of 1999. 4) Taking these aspects into consideration, I do not see that there is any infraction on the part of the learned Judge in issuing process. The application is premature. The applicants have other remedies to exhaust. The application lacks merits, dismissed. Sd/- (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) rsl