1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1595 OF 2008 P.K.Das Petitioner versus Bina C. Balkrishnan and another Respondents Raja Thakare i/by A.M.Chimalkar for petitioner. Srivastava i/by M/s.Consulta Juris for respondent no.1. Ms.S.V.Gajre, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 17th July 2009 PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. The first respondent filed a complaint in the Court of learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate issued process on the said complaint. By this writ petition a prayer is made by the petitioner-accused for quashing the order of issue of process. 2. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner which is noted in order dated 16th September 2008 passed by this Court is that to the complaint filed by the first respondent no documents were annexed. Therefore, the record and proceedings of the complaint was called for. 2 After perusing the record and proceedings, this Court passed an order on 23rd April 2009 recording that there is nothing on record to show that the original documents were produced along with the complaint or that the xerox copies of the documents relied upon in the complainant were annexed to the complaint. A perusal of the complaint shows that the first respondent is relying upon various documents. As the documents on which reliance was placed by the first respondent-complainant were not before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate could not have considered the complaint and passed an order of issue of process. 3. A perusal of the complaint shows that the first respondent alleged offences under sections 420, 342, 509 of the Indian Penal Code. It must be stated here that an application was made by the advocate for the petitioner on 23rd May 2007 before the learned Magistrate pointing out that there were no annexures to the complaint. Even in the verification statement of the first respondent recorded by the learned Magistrate he has referred to an agreement, a bill and correspondence made between the parties. Reliance is also placed on a communication in the form of an e-mail. As stated earlier, a perusal of the record shows that the learned Magistrate had no occasion to even refer to the said documents as the same were not on record. With a view to ensure that the first respondent does not suffer, only option left before this Court is to set aside the order of issue of process passed by the learned Magistrate with liberty to the first respondent to file the documents relied upon. The learned Magistrate will have to consider the complaint afresh. 3 4. Hence, I pass following order :- (a) The order dated 27th December 2006 passed by the learned Magistrate of issue of process is quashed and set aside; (b) It will be open for the first respondent to produce relevant documents before the Trial Court. After considering the complaint afresh, the learned Judge will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law; (c) The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (A.S.OKA, J.)