(1) CRI. APLN. 4131.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4131 OF 2010 Rajkumar S/o Laxminarayan Kogta Age : 38 years, Occu.: Business, R/o : 18-A, Ramdas Colony, Near Soft Aid Computer, Jalgaon, Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through City Police Station, Jalgaon (Copy to be served on P.P. High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) RESPONDENT ..... Mr. S.S. Patil,Advocate for the Applicant Mr. N.H. Borade, A.P.P. for the respondent/State ..... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 30TH NOVEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. This is an Application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Heard learned Advocate and learned A.P.P. 3. The offence is registered against the applicant on basis of a private complaint Application (2) CRI. APLN. 4131.2010 submitted by the father of the applicant which was referred for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Father of the applicant filed the private complaint alleging that on 16.7.2010 at about 10.45 am, the applicant visited his shop and started abusing him in filthy language. The applicant allegedly demanded Rs.1 Crore from the father and threatened him that if he will not pay such amount, his legs and hands would be amputed. The applicant is said to have barged, thereafter, in the shop of the complainant. 4. It prima facie appears from the record that the applicant had filed a private complaint case against his elder brother for offences of cheating and forgery etc. The private complaint filed by the applicant is dated 26.7.2010, whereas the private complaint filed by his father is dated 20.8.2010. It appears that the applicant’s father is jointly residing with elder brother of the applicant. Thus, there appears family dispute between the family on one side and his father and the elder brother on the other side. The father alleges that the applicant is (3) CRI. APLN. 4131.2010 a berate, whereas the applicant alleges that his brother has cheated him. 5. Considering the fact that there is background of family dispute at the bottom of the private complaint lodged by the father of the applicant, the arrest of the applicant may not be necessary and required for any effective investigation. For, nothing was paid by the complainant (father) to the applicant nor any recovery is to be made from him. The matter only reveals to what extent even the blood relatives can go to frame each other. 6. In view of the foregoing reasons, the Application is allowed. The ad-interim relief granted to the applicant vide order dated 18.10.2010 is confirmed on the same terms. The condition to attend the Police Station is continued for four weeks henceforth and the order of keeping the same in abeyance is revoked. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp