1 321411 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY vgm CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3214 OF 2011 Asif Iqbal Topiwala ...Petitioner V/s. Zareen Asif Iqbal Topiwala & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Chandrakala Benke for the Petitioner Ms. Tahera Qureshi for Respondent No. 1 Mrs. A.S. Pai, A.P.P., for Respondent No. 2 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2011 P.C.:- By this petition, two independent reliefs are claimed. The first relief is to clarify the order passed by the District Judge, Kalyan, dated 10th March, 2011 read with 22nd July, 2011. The second relief is to quash F.I.R. No. 130 of 2011 dated 21st September, 2011 registered with Dongeri Police Station on the ground that the allegation therein that the petitioner obstructed respondent No. 1 from enjoying the relief operating in her favour in terms of order dated 13th July, 2010 passed by 2 321411 the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalyan, in Inquiry Application No. 77 of 2010, is founded on non-existent cause of action. 2. As regards the relief of clarification of order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 2011 by the District Judge, Kalyan, the petitioner has been ill-advised to approach this Court. The purport of order passed by that Court on 10th March, 2011 read with order dated 22nd July, 2011 can be explained by that Court. It would be a different matter if the petitioner had challenged the said orders before appropriate forum. Accordingly, we do not deem it appropriate to exercise Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of proceedings pending before the subordinate Court. 3. As aforesaid, F.I.R. No. 130 of 2011 is founded on the allegation that the petitioner, in effect, disobeyed part of the order of the Judicial Magistrate dated 13th July, 2010, which, according to the petitioner, was not, and could not have been, stayed by the District Judge in the appeal preferred by the petitioner. As regards the said allegation, no fault can be found with respondent No. 1 for having proceeded on the basis of her perception, based on the tenor of the order dated 10th March, 2011 and 22nd July, 2011 passed by the 3 321411 District Judge, Kalyan. Moreover, so long as the purport of that order is not clarified by the concerned Court, the petitioner cannot be heard to submit that the acts of commission and omission referred to in the complaint made by respondent No. 1 against him were in breach of the order of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kalyan, dated 13th July, 2010, or otherwise. 4. In the circumstances, we dispose of this petition, with liberty to the petitioner to, in the first place, approach the District Judge, Kalyan, who has had occasion to pass order dated 10th March, 2011 and dated 22nd July, 2011. It is only after getting clarification from the said Court, the petitioner can pursue remedy of challenge to F.I.R. as prayed in this petition. All questions are left open. R.G. KETKAR, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.