1 Cri.Appln.No.3159/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3159 OF 2010 Indrabahadur Singh ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Kuldeep S. Patil for the Applicant. Mrs.P.P. Bhosale, APP for the State. Mr.Sanjeev Sawant with Mr.Sandeep Barve i/b. M/s.B.K. Barve & Co. for Respondent No.2. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : AUGUST 3, 2010 P.C. :- 1 This application is filed by the applicant under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal complaint filed by the respondent in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai and the order passed by the learned Magistrate to investigate the matter under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. 2 Cri.Appln.No.3159/2010 2 It is submitted that the applicant was given a cabin by the complainant and he was using that cabin as an Advocate. It is submitted that abruptly the complainant dispossessed the applicant and refused to handover the security deposit which was paid by the applicant herein. He submitted that in the statement which was recorded by the police pursuant to MECR which was registered by the police, even if the allegations which are made in the said statement are accepted, no case is made out against the present applicant. It is submitted that the said complaint has been filed maliciously in order to victimise the present applicant and the allegations, if any, are filed against the co-accused and not against the present applicant. 3 I have perused the complaint and the statement of the complainant which is recorded by the trial court. It is not possible to accept the 3 Cri.Appln.No.3159/2010 contention of the applicant that the averments made in the complaint do not constitute an offence as alleged by the complainant. At this stage, it is not, therefore, possible to interfere with the order of investigation which is passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The applicant is always at liberty to file an application for discharge at the appropriate time. Hence, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order for quashing the FIR which is registered against the present applicant. 4 Application is disposed of. Interim protection is continued for a period of one week only. (V.M. KANADE, J.)