-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.159 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.159 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.159 OF 2008 Mr.Rajiv K. Tandon ...Petitioner vs. Mrs.Sharmishta Shah & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Shashank Borade for the Petitioner Mr.Rakesh Pandey i/b M/s.Ashwin Arikhad & Associates for the Respondent Ms A.A.Mane, A.P.P. for State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE,J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE,J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE,J. DATE DATE DATE : JUNE 13, 2008. : JUNE 13, 2008. : JUNE 13, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The Revision Application filed by the Petitioner against the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaon, Bombay has been dismissed. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the process issued against him. It is submitted on his behalf that there is no allegation against him in the complaint filed before the court whereby the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out. He submitted that allegations contained in the complaint are only against the builder and not against the Petitioner who has purchased the flat after payment to the builder. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no privity of contract between the Petitioner and the complainant, nor was there any nexus between the Petitioner and the complainant. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the process issued against the Petitioner needs to be set aside. -2- 2. In my view, the Sessions court has rightly observed that the process issued against the Petitioner has been validly issued. There are certain statements made in the complaint which implicate the Petitioner in the offence and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Sessions Court. 3. Petition is rejected. * * * * *