AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.206 OF 2009 Amaldar Ramlakhan Singh Thakur ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents Ms. Jamila Shaikh for the petitioner. Ms. U.V. Kejariwal, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED : 22ND JUNE, 2009. P.C.:- 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). He has prayed that FIR MECR No.1 of 2008 dated 29/8/2008 registered at the Kurla Police Station be quashed. AJN 2 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. She submitted that the petitioner is not at all involved in MECR No.1 of 2008 registered against him. According to her, the petitioner is a simple man, who is not involved in any gang and he is wrongly implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to Order dated 3/7/2008 passed by the Principal Judge, Sessions Court, Bombay, on an application filed for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner in MECR No.3 of 2005 registered for offences punishable under Sections 384, 506(1) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, (for short, “the IPC”) at the Ghatkopar Police Station, Bombay. Learned counsel drew our attention to paragraph 4 of the said order, where it is stated that the petitioner does not appear to be an influential person who can give threats to the applicants who are contractors. Learned counsel submitted that the said contractors are partners of M/s. M.M. Developers. She pointed out that the complainant in this case has stated that he is carrying on the business as builders and developers under the name AJN 3 and style of M/s. M.M. Developers. Learned counsel submitted that therefore the complainant in the present case is also a partner along with the contractors who were allegedly threatened by the petitioner and in respect of which threats MECR No.3 of 2005 was registered. Learned counsel submitted that it is alleged in this case that threats were given to the complainant on 21/6/2008. She submitted that it is significant to note that learned Sessions Judge has in his order dated 3/7/2008 made the above quoted observation about the petitioner. Therefore, it is apparent that similar false allegations are made against the petitioner. She submitted that this is therefore a fit case where FIR should be quashed. 3. We are unable to accept the submissions of learned counsel. We have perused the investigation papers produced before us. We are informed by learned A.P.P. on instructions from API Shaikh of Kurla Police Station who is present in the court that during the investigation, the police have caught hold of a tape-recorded conversation AJN 4 of which a CD has been made which indicates the threats which the complainant has received. She submitted that the name of the present petitioner figures in the conversation. In the file submitted to us, we have found the text of the conversation which is deciphered by the police where the name of the petitioner figures. In this case, we are concerned with MECR No.1 of 2008. Observations made by the Sessions Court in the order passed while rejecting cancellation of bail application that too in MECR No.3 of 2005 cannot be of any assistance to the petitioner. On the basis thereof, he cannot contend that MECR No.1 of 2008 be quashed. 4. In T. Vengama Naidu v. T. Dora Swamy Naidu & Ors., (2007) 12 SCC 93, the Supreme Court has stated that where the investigation is in progress and the police have not submitted a report to the Magistrate, the FIR can be quashed only if there appears to be no offence spelt out in the complaint. At the stage of investigation, the High Court cannot examine the nature of transaction AJN 5 or whether any offence was actually committed by the accused or not. The High Court cannot quash the FIR, at this stage, by examining the nature of the transaction. In view of the above, in our opinion, this is not a fit case where the FIR can be quashed. The petition is dismissed. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [R.G. KETKAR, J.]