sns 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.767 OF 2011 Manik Developers ..Applicant. v/s. The State and Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Harshad V. Bhadbhade, adv. for the Applicant. Smt. P.P.Shinde, APP for the respondent no.1/State. Mr. Amit Qate, adv. For the R.Nos.2 to 7. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 10th October, 2011 PC : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 This application is made for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent nos.2 to 7 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in CR No.5/2010 registered with Dadar police station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 467 r/w section 120-B and section 34 IPC. 3 Complaint was lodged by the present applicant Manik Developers and on the basis of direction given by the learned Magistrate to investigate the case under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., the above referred offence came to be registered. The applicant/complainant is a partnership firm and builder. Respondent nos.2 to 7 are the directors of the Siddhivinayak Construction Company. Complainant was originally allotted the work of redevelopment of the building of Akansha Co-operative sns 2 Housing Society. Some work was done by the complainant and later on, tripartite agreement was made between the applicant, said Siddhivinayak Construction Company and the said Akansha Co-operative Housing Society and the work of construction was given to the Siddhivinayak Construction Company. As per the tripartite contract, out of three buildings, buildings A and B were to be given to the society and building C was to be disposed off by Siddhivinayak Construction Company as per the terms of the contract. Admittedly, buildings A and B after construction were handed over to the society and the society has taken possession of the same. Complainant made a grievance that the construction wasnot made as per the sanction plan and that plan which was produced before the SRA was forged one and that the terms of the contract were not fully complied and the society was not given premises as per the terms of the contract. 4 Complaint is made by the original builder, who himself could not make the construction and entered into the contract with the Siddhivinayak Construction Company for the completion of work. It appears that the society or its office bearers have not come forward with any complaint. Dispute is between the original builder and the subsequent builder about the non-compliance of the terms of the contract. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that it appears to be dispute of civil nature. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances noted above, I sns 3 find no reason to cancel the anticipatory bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge. 5 Therefore, the application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)