1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 20 OF 2008 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 244 OF 2001 M/s. Nalanda Enterprise ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ..Respondents Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni with Mr. Vishal Kanade i/by M/s. Narayanan and Narayanan for petitioner. Mr. P.A. Pol, P.P. For State. Mr. H.S. Shreepad Murthy for respondent no.3. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. July 30, 2009. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Kumbhakoni with Mr. Vishal Kanade the learned counsel for the petitioner who prays to punish respondent nos. 2 and 3 for criminal contempt on account of forging and fabricating the possession letter and alleged plans dated 6/5/2000 which came to be produced before this court in Contempt Petition No. 244 of 2001. 2 2. Admittedly, Contempt Petition No. 244 of 2001 was a Civil Contempt Petition as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the said contempt petition came to be decided on 10th/16th October, 2002. It is contended before us that the petitioner had made an application under the Right to Information Act and he received the opinion of the Chief State Examiner of Documents dated 26/9/2006, on 17/1/2007. He submitted an application to the learned Advocate General on 10/1/2008 and consent was granted for initiating contempt proceeding on 20/2/2008. This petition has been filed on 25/11/2008. 3. Admittedly, as of now, the opinion of the Chief State Examiner of Documents has not been tested before any competent court. In addition, the petitioner has stated in para 23 of the petition memo that in respect of the offence of fabrication of false documents and filing the same before this court, the petitioner has filed an FIR before the Azad Maidan Police Station and thereafter the police have registered C.R. No. 98 of 2008 in respect of the said offence. In normal course the police will investigate into the complaint and file a report in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate concerned (in the instant case in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate). Thus the process of testing the opinion of the Chief State Examiner of Documents has already been set in motion by filing the FIR and if the competent court accepts the said opinion, undoubtedly, it has the power to punish the offender. As of now there is no confirmed opinion before us that the concerned documents were fabricated. 4. We, therefore, hold that there is no cause of action, as of now, to entertain this criminal contempt petition and equally efficacious remedy has already 3 been resorted to by the petitioner by lodging an FIR with the Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai. 5. Hence, the petition is disposed as premature. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)