wp2877.09.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2877 OF 2009 Shankar Prasad Dukhi Gupta ....Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. Mr. A.M. Saraogi, Adv. for the Petitioner. Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for the State. Mr. Ramesh S. Pandey, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 18th June, 2010 P.C.: 1 We have heard Mr. Saraogi, the learned advocate appearing for the Petitioner, Mrs. Shinde, the Learned APP for the State and Mr.Pandey, the learned advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 2 The Petitioner had lodged the complaint through his Advocate on 14/10/2008 to the Senior Inspector of Police, Samata Nagar Police Station. As per the said complaint, he had agreed to purchase shop No.13 in Thakur Complex, Kandiwali (E), Mumbai with the intervention of Respondent No.3 Shri Lalji Yadav, as well as Shri Narendra Yadav and Baburao Yadav (All 3 brothers). Respondent No.3 Shri Lalaji Yadav is an advocate and appeared as an advocate in some matters for the Petitioner. The Petitioner further complained that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid initially as against wp2877.09.sxw 2 the agreed price of Rs.28,50,000/-, on 11/10/2007 for the shop through the Respondents. He further alleges that on 08/01/2008 he paid an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- and on the next day i.e. on 09/01/2008 he paid an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- to Shri Lalji Yadav. 3 The purchase prices was, in the meanwhile, hiked to Rs.29,00,000/- and therefore, he paid Rs.1,50,000/- on 09/01/2008, Rs.1,50,000/- on 11/01/2008, Rs.1,50,000/- on 21/01/2008 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 23/01/2008, all by cheques. However, in spite of this, the shop was registered in the name of Shri Lalji Yadav and not in his name. He therefore, requested the police to lodged an FIR against Shri Lalji Yadav and 2 of his brothers for the offences punishable under Section 145, 192, 193, 194, 201, 202, 405, 406, 418, 420, 421, 467, 468, 471, 479, 452, 550, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sec. 7 and 25 of Arms and Ammunition Act. 4 As per the Petitioner, the Police did not conduct the investigation or investigation was not properly conducted and therefore, he seeks directions against the police to register the FIR and proceed against the Respondents for investigation. 5 Shri Anand Kenjale, Senior Inspector of Police who was attached to the Samata Nagar Police Station, at the relevant time, has filed an affidavit in reply and stated that the Petitioner’s complaint was received against the present Respondents for the offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy. The said complaint was endorsed by Mr. Ghume to Mr. S.B. Shinde, P.S.I. to conduct a preliminary enquiry and he proceeded to wp2877.09.sxw 3 record the statements. Subsequently, the Police also received a notice through Shri Saraogi, the learned advocate for the Petitioner, on 08/10/2009 and therefore, they submitted the investigation report. The Police opined that the nature of dispute between the Complainant and the Respondents or the complaint filed by the Petitioner was basically of Civil nature and there was no case made out to take cognizance and to investigate further. 6 We have heard Mr. Saraogi, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner at length, perused the complaints submitted by the Petitioner from time to time, as well as the affidavit in reply and we do not find any error in the stand taken by the police that the complaint submitted by the Petitioner appears to be in respect of a Civil dispute against Shri Lalji Yadav, as well as two brothers. 7 Hence, the Petition is rejected. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)