:1: :1: :1: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 288 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO. 288 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO. 288 OF 2008. R. Ramkrishnan & Others. ..Petitioners. Versus. M/s. Rapid Developers & Others. ..Respondents. --- Mr. D. S. Chandnani i/b M/s. Lexim and Associates for the petitioner. S. A. Bhalwal i/b M/s. Vyas & Bhalwal and Associates for the respondent no.1. Mrs. Anjali Helekar with S. A. Abhyakumar for respondent no.2. Mr. A. S. Gadkari APP for the State. CORAM: S. B. MHASE & CORAM: S. B. MHASE & CORAM: S. B. MHASE & SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE: February 28, 2008. DATE: February 28, 2008. DATE: February 28, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This petition has been filed for various prayers which are made in paragraph no.13. Petitioner is claiming premises from the MHADA on the basis of the lease hold rights. It appears that the petitioner has made a prayer that Appeals bearing Nos. 1503 to 1505, 2268 and 1519 to 1522 of 2006 pending on the file of the State Consumer Commission may be directed to be disposed of within a stipulated time. In fact the said prayer can be made by the petitioner to the State Consumer Commission and the said Commission can consider the said prayer of the petitioner taking into consideration the facts and urgency :2: :2: :2: in the case. Therefore, we refrain to entertain the petition so far as the prayer in clause (a)(ii) is concerned. 2. So far as prayer clause (a)(iv) is concerned the petitioner has sought declaration that the agreement dated 31st July 2004 is fabricated by the respondent no.2 as per the signatories to the said agreement and the same may be set aside and quashed. Further in clause (v), the petitioners have prayed for initiation of proceedings against the respondent nos. 1 & 2 for the offences punishable under sections 191, 192, 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code for they having fabricated the facts/ circumstances for the purpose of misleading various authorities / Courts, etc. For both these prayers the petitioner can file separate complaints before the Magistrate and/or lodge an FIR before the concerned police officers. Therefore we refrain to entertain the petition on this ground. 3. So far as the prayer in clause (a)(iii) is concerned the petitioner has prayed that the Metropolitan Magistrate at Mulund be directed to dispose of the complaints bearing RCC No. 224 and 403 of 2003 filed by the petitioner within a period of six months. The petitioner has already approached to the said Magistrate and Magistrate has considered the prayer and passed the order. The Judge has considered the pendency of the cases :3: :3: :3: with him, more specifically the cases which are old matters of before 2000 and thereafter has rejected the application of the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case and in the light of the observations made by the Metropolitan Magistrate, we find that the order has been properly passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Court. (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) /2008/VKT/..