1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Appellate Side Criminal Writ Petition No. 1549 of 2008 With Criminal Application No. 309 of 2008 Shri Rajpatprasad Sitaram Arkh C.A. of Smt. Sadhanadevi Arkh ..Petitioner Vs. The Union of India through its Director of Central Bureau of Investigation and ors. ..Respondents Mr. Rajpatprasad Arkh, Petitioner, party-in-person, is present. Mr. H.V. Mehta with Mr. A.S. Gadkari for respondent nos.1 and 11. Smt. V.R. Bhosale, APP for State. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & R.Y. GANOO,JJ. December 01, 2009. P.C. 1. We have heard the petitioner, party-in-person, who has filed this petition in his capacity as the Constituted Attorney of his wife Mrs. Sadhanadevi Arkh. 2. The voluminous record placed before us indicates that Mrs. Sadhanadevi Arkh entered into a hire-purchase agreement 2 to purchase the commercial motor vehicle (goods truck) with M/s. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. sometimes in February, 1997. She was paying the EMI to the finance company and the vehicle was registered in her name, but hypothecated to the said company. However, she became a defaulter and, therefore, the finance company on 18/11/1998 took over the possession of the truck. The payment of the arrears was cleared and by letter dated 5/1/1999 the finance company released the vehicle subject to payment of parking charges by Mrs. Sadhanadevi. An amount of Rs.3750/- was paid by her to M/s. Shri Saibaba Enterprises towards the parking charges on 6/1/1999 and she was put in possession of the said vehicle bearing registration No.MH-06/K-603. 3. The owner thereafter approached the Hindustan Co- operative Bank Ltd. for loan on hypothecation of the vehicle and by its letter dated 21/6/1999 the bank called upon the owner to bring no objection certificate from the finance company. It appears that the finance company did not issue such no objection and it is the case of the petitioner that the vehicle remained idle and she sustained huge losses. 3 4. She filed simultaneous proceedings after approaching the police. Civil Suit No. 3835 of 1999 was filed on the Original Side of this court and a Receiver came to be appointed on 27/4/2000. This order was challenged in Civil Appeal which was disposed on 9/5/2000. The petitioner approached the Apex Court and her Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed in June/July, 2000. The petitioner then approached this court for restoration of the appeal as she could not pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as was directed to be paid while disposing off the appeal. On 28/9/2000 the restoration application was dismissed and review petition also came to be dismissed on 31/3/2001. Notice of Motion in the appeal was taken out for modification of the order passed on 9/5/2000 and it was rejected on 26/6/2001. 5. The petitioner approached the Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court at Esplanade and filed complaint No.852/M of 2001, subsequently renumbered as Complaint No. 201/(I & R)/2003 for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 506, 406, 419, 472 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC against the finance company and its officers. Mrs.Sadhanadevi also filed a fresh suit i.e. Suit No. 1583 of 2002 on the Original Side of this 4 court for recovering all damages in the sum of Rs.3,00,992/- on 23/1/2002. The criminal complaint filed was directed for investigation by the police and the I.O. submitted his report before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate who was pleased to dismiss the said complaint registered as C.C. No. 201/I & R/2003 on 3/3/2004. This order came to be challenged in Criminal Revision Application No. 909 of 2007 before the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge was pleased to dismiss the revision by his order dated 31/10/2007. 6. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 630 of 2006, which also came to be disposed off by the Division Bench on 26/11/2007. In our order dated 24/11/2009 passed in this petition, we had made it clear and as was noted while disposing off Criminal Writ Petition No. 630 of 2006 that the petitioner’s remedy to challenge the order dated 31/10/2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was somewhere else and, therefore, we considered the petitioner’s prayer only to the extent of prayer clause (i) and (iii). 7. The petitioner having filed a complaint before the learned 5 Metropolitan Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 506, 406, 419, 472 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and the complaint came to be dismissed, his remedy for restoration of the complaint by challenging the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in the Criminal Revision Application lies somewhere else. In the Civil Suit filed by the petitioner in 2002 i.e. Suit No. 1583 of 2002 he may take out appropriate application/chamber summons for interim orders, if he desires. In any case, having regard to the nature of transaction i.e. by way of hire-purchase agreement, we do not find any case made out to issue directions to the CBI to investigate into the complaint filed by the petitioner and addressed to host of authorities on 22/6/2008. In fact, the petitioner could have also approached the District or State level Consumer Redressal Forum for recovery of damages against the finance company and the same proceedings could have been considered by the Forum on its own merits. If he succeeds in his challenge to the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 31/10/2007 thereby dismissing the Criminal Revision Application No. 909 of 2004, his complaint filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate would stand restored and the criminal law will be set in motion. 6 8. In the peculiar facts of this case, we, therefore, do not find any reason to entertain this petition and hence the same is hereby dismissed. 9. Criminal Application No. 309 of 2008 does not survive and same shall stand disposed as such. (R.Y.GANOO,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)