CHARU KISHOR MEHTA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE made returnable forthwith by consent of learned Counsel representing the parties. Heard submissions.

(2.) THE Petitioner prayed for issuance of the writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding Respondent No. 2 to forthwith file a FIpR and carry out a thorough investigation in to the offences set out in the complaint of in the said complaint for punishment of the Accused therein and all persons connected with the said offence in accordance with law.

(3.) THE petition is opposed by the State of Maharashtra and second respondent Additional Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences wing Mumbai. Interveners Dr. Narendra Trivedi and others 7 also by criminal Application No. 308 of 2010 sought to oppose relief in the writ Petition. An affidavit in reply was filed by Shri. Ashok Kisan Kakad, police Inspector, Economic Offences Wing Unit III, Crime Branch, Mumbai. It is contended that dispute was going on between the Petitioner and the Trustee Vijay Mehta in connection with the Trust of Lilavati Hospital and it was necessary to verify the facts mentioned by the petitioner in his complaint to know as to whether prima facie a cognizable offence is made out or not. Thus it was decided to conduct preliminary inquiry in to the matter. THE Petitioner had challenged the powers, rights, actions and the decisions and the transactions of the Trustees and alleged on that basis that they have committed offences. THE deponent on behalf of the respondents claims that during the course of inquiry, prima facie no criminal offence was made out and no loss or misappropriation was found. THE Police authority to whom the complaint application was addressed felt that the issue as to whether the Trustees have right to make the transactions as alleged was found a question pertaining to jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioner, Worli, at Mumbai. Thus having concluded that the dispute was of a civil nature and no cognizable offence was made out, the complaint application of the petitioner was forwarded to the office of the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai with a request for a necessary action and disposal. THE petitioner was informed accordingly. Thus contending that neither offence of Criminal beach of Trust nor any commission of cognizable offence was disclosed the respondents prayed for dismissal of the Petition. THE interveners against whom complaint is filed have supported the plea of the Respondents that this Court ought not to entertain writ petition as the Petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy. THE Petitioner on the other hand, has opposed the intervention application on the argument that the Applicants therein have no locus to intervene in this Petition. THEy are neither necessary nor proper parties in the context of the relief claimed in the Petition.