- 1 - 787.11 rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO.787 OF 2011 1.Mrs Naseema A.Karim Cotawala 2.Mrs Sana A.Majid Coatwala .. Applicants vs 1.Shri Arif Hussain Ashfar Hussain Zariwalla 2.The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Mr.Ganesh Gole for Applicants Mr.A.K.Tiwari i.b Ms Vandana Gupta for Respt no.1 Mr.S.A.Shaikh APP for State CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J DATE: 3rd October, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard finally. The Petitioner moved an Application being C.C.No.12/M/2009 against the respondent-Arif seeking action in terms of section 145 of Cr.P.C. 2. Mr.Gole submits grievance is that matter was adjourned from 13.6.2011 to 7.7.2011 and surreptitiously it has appeared on board of the learned Judge on 5.7.2011 and without hearing the Applicant Smt.Naseema or her Advocate the impugned order came to be passed. He has urged to remand the - 2 - 787.11 matter to the learned Magistrate to decide the same on its own merits. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Arif submits that the Court noting at page 46 produced by the Applicant illustrates that on 13.6.2011 matter was adjourned to 5.7.2011 and it was also shown for order on Application dated 21.2.2009. He submits that there is no error in taking up the matter on already scheduled date on 5.7.2011. Additionally, learned counsel for the respondent submits written arguments were tendered by the Applicant-Smt Naseema (page 68) while written arguments were also tendered by Arif (page70). Learned counsel submits that since the learned Judge was equipped with written submissions along with documents, he has appropriately passed the order on 5.7.2011. 4. Mr.Gole submits that as the order reflects to have been given audience to Mr.R.K.Mishra, learned advocate for the Respondent, same should have been given to the Applicant through her Advocate. 5. The facts narrated by Applicant's learned - 3 - 787.11 counsel of the written arguments are not in controversy. The details have been highlighted by both sides to demonstrate their stand as to who was in actual occupation of the property and in what capacity. The respondent claims to surrender of licence granted in favour of Applicant-Smt Naseema and consequently asserted to be in possession of the property as owner. 6. On a perusal of the prima facie record, I find that seeking an action in terms of section 145 of Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate claiming rights in immovable property was not warranted. The learned Judge has observed that the remedies available to Smt-Naseema are for seeking specific performance or compensation. No eventuality of disturbance of public peace was demonstrated. Consequently, I do not see any error in rejecting the Application. Present Application lacks merit. Dismissed. K.U.Chandiwal, J