1 Cri.Appln 4262-2010 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4262 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2999 OF 2010 Vipul K. Agarwal .Applicant V/s. Senior Inspector of Police, .Respondents Azad Maidan Police Station & ors Mr.Subhash Jha i/b. Nagi & Co., Advocate, for the Applicant in Cri.Appln.No.4262 of 2010 Mr.Sanjeev P. Kadam i/b. Nagi & Co., Advocate, for Petitioner in Cri.W.P.No.2999 of 2010 Mr.Abad Ponda, Advocate, for Respondent No.1 Mr.Kocharekar, Advocate, for Respondent No.2 Mr.Y.M.Nakhawa, APP, for Respondent No.4 - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 20TH APRIL, 2011 P.C. . Criminal Application No.4262 of 2010 is filed for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No.10/N/2009 pending before the learned ACMM, 8th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai and other consequential reliefs. Criminal Writ Petition No.2999 of 2010 questions the Order passed by the learned ACMM on 4th October, 2010 in Criminal Case No.10/N/2009 and seeks a direction to the learned Magistrate to hear 2 Cri.Appln 4262-2010 and decide issues raised in Application dated 3rd November, 2009 in the said Criminal case. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is not necessary to re-count at length facts which propelled the parties to this Court. Applicant claims to have entered into an Agreement in respect of suit premises with the owners and spent crores on starting a new bakery business therein. Civil proceedings between the parties in respect of the premises are already filed in the Original Side of this Court and the Court of Small Causes. 3. A police officer, on receipt of a complaint, filed proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned ACMM and sealed the properties. The applicant/petitioner had applied before the learned ACMM under Section 145(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Applicant had also 3 Cri.Appln 4262-2010 filed Criminal Application No.3105 of 2009 before this Court for the same relief as is claimed in Criminal Application No.4262 of 2010. By Order dated 4th September, 2009, the application was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to pursue the application before the learned ACMM and to file a fresh application before this Court should an occasion arise. This is why Criminal Application No.4262 of 2010 is filed. Though the present application does not clarify as to what was the occasion to file this application on 13th September, 2010, the occasion, according to the learned Counsel for the applicant, was Order passed by the learned ACMM on 4th October, 2010 (questioned in Cri.W.P.No.2999 of 2010) refusing to look into issues raised by application dated 3rd November, 2009, holding that those issues could not be said to be those in continuation of contentions in application dated 15th April, 2009. The learned Magistrate had however clarified that 4 Cri.Appln 4262-2010 contentions which are purely based on law will be allowed to be raised. 4. The arguments about improprieties on the part of the police officer who sought seal of the premises or the then learned Magistrate who allowed it, or the fact that the learned Magistrate ceases to be in service are not relevant for deciding those proceedings. 5. The question is whether in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court should be interfering in Order dated 4th October, 2010, which is an interim order limiting the parameters of the controversy before the learned Magistrate. It is thoroughly undesirable that such proceedings should be taken out during the pendency of Criminal case before the learned Magistrate. In any case at this stage, there seems nothing wrong in the Order dated 4th October, 2010 passed by the learned ACMM (who is a different 5 Cri.Appln 4262-2010 officer than the one who ordered sealing). If after the learned ACMM decides the case before him finally, petitioner/applicant has any grievance left, he could always agitate it by appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum. Interference in interim Orders by invoking jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would amount to further delays in final disposal of the case before the learned ACMM. 6. If Order dated 4th October, 2010 does not warrant any interference, there can be no occasion to seek quashing of the case itself in the face of withdrawal of Criminal Application No.3105 of 2009 where same relief was sought. The learned Magistrate has listed the case for hearing on 13th June, 2010. It is pointed out with reference to roznama that it was the applicant who had been dragging his feet and protracting the proceedings by seeking adjournments. 6 Cri.Appln 4262-2010 7. In view of this, both the Criminal Applications and Criminal Writ Petition are disposed of with the following direction. 8. The proceedings pending before the Magistrate which are listed by the Magistrate on 13th June, 2011 shall be heard by the learned ACMM on that date and decided within a period of 15 days thereafter. The learned Magistrate would limit the time of advancing oral arguments permissible to both the parties according to time available to him on that date and shall not adjourn the hearing unless he feels it necessary to allow the parties to address him even after 13th June, 2011. The parties may prepare notes of their written arguments and tender them before the Court well in advance after exchanging copies amongst themselves. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)