cran114.06 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 114 OF 2006 Kondaji @ Sameer s/o Karimsab Bagwan Age 36 years, Occ. Medical Practitioner R/o Bazar Chowk, Nehru Chowk, Osmanabad, District Osmanabad ...Applicant Versus 1 The Police Inspector, City Police Station, Osmanabad 2 Superintendent of Police, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad 3 The State of Maharashtra, Through it’s Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai (Copy to be served on P.P. High court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 4 Ajay s/o Manmatappa Shete, Age 32 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Samarth Nagar, Behind District Court, Osmanabad ...Respondents ..... Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, advocate for the applicant Mr. N.R. Shaikh, APP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 ..... cran114.06 -2- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 5TH OCTOBER, 2011 JUDGMENT (PER A.H. JOSHI, J.):- 1 Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 2 Heard. Perused FIR. The FIR discloses that grievance of the complainant is not regarding the right of the petitioner to practice in Maharashtra. It is regarding the cheating. Therefore, this petition can be heard. 3 We find that the contents of FIR do adequately describe the allegations of cheating and investigation can proceed and FIR cannot be quashed or stayed. 4 Insofar as the offences under Section 33(1) of Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 and under Section 15 of Drugs Act are concerned, the investigation shall be subject to the decision of District Level Committee constituted for Scrutiny of cases of quacks and order passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 48 of 2005. cran114.06 -3- 5 Rule accordingly made partly absolute and we direct that insofar as the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. is concerned, let the investigation be completed. *****