SURESH MOHANLAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Petition, which is filed under Art. and of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking writ/order and direction, directing the Respondent to register FIR as per the statement of the Petitioner dated 11th October, 2011, read with letter dated 20th October, 2011. The Petitioner is also seeking a further relief for transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation, or CID or some other independent investigation agency. The Petitioner is also seeking a direction, directing the Dadar Police Station to hand over the keys of Shop No. 4 and all the goods of the Petitioner lying outside with inventory and spot panchanama to the Petitioner. He is also seeking an ad -interim relief and the interim relief in terms of the aforesaid reliefs. The brief facts are as under - According to the Petitioner, he had entered into a deal in the month of February, 2008, and approached the Developer Mr. Pradeep Shah of Siddhi Constructions and after due negotiations it was agreed that said Pradeep Shah would sell suit Shop No. 4 to the Petitioner for a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs. According to the Petitioner, he made part -payment of Rs. 30 lakhs by cash on various dates and possession of the Shop was handed over to the Petitioner in March, 2008. According to the him, said Developer Pradeep Shah agreed to execute the agreement under the provisions of MOFA at the time of payment of balance consideration by the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, he was carrying on business from the said Shop. He obtained 'Shop & Establishments' license and telephone connection on the address of the said Shop. According to the Petitioner, he had expressed his willingness to pay the balance consideration and requested him to execute the agreement under the MOFA. However, on 25th January, 2009 the Petitioner was dispossessed from the said Shop. He, therefore, filed NC complaint being 158 of 2009 with the Dadar Police Station. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a suit in the City Civil Court, restraining Pradeep Shah and Prakash B. Jain from disturbing his possession without due process of law. Said suit is still pending in the City Civil Court, Bombay. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that on 11th October, 2011 at about 12.00 noon when the Petitioner was sitting in another shop, he sent his servants to said Shop to collect old refrigerator, they turned back stating that goods originally lying inside the said shop are lying on the footpath and road outside the said shop. The Petitioner, therefore, rushed the said shop, called police by making telephone on the emergency number 100. According to the Petitioner, however, police did not send police van, and therefore, he contacted Dadar Police Station at 5.00 p.m. The Petitioner's case is that statement of the Petitioner was recorded in Marathi, without explaining its contents, and thereafter no steps were taken by the police. He, therefore, wrote various letters to the higher officials. According to him, on account of the inaction by the police, he has preferred this Petition, seeking appropriate directions.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner firstly submitted that he handed over the keys of the shop to the police. He submitted that this fact was admitted by the police in the report, which was submitted to the D.C.P. He further submitted that this fact was depicted in the Advocate's letter sent to the police.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the Petitioner invited our attention to the said documents. It is submitted that the goods from the said Shop are still lying on the footpath and it was, therefore, submitted that the directions may be given to the police to hand over the keys to the Petitioner. On the other hand, the learned APP for the Respondent submitted that no relief was granted in favour of the Petitioner in the City Civil Court, Bombay, and after having failed to obtain any relief in the City Civil Court, the Petitioner has filed this Petition mala fide. It was submitted that the police had investigated the case and the Petitioner was not in a position to produce a single document, either to show that he was owner of the said Shop or he was ever in possession of the said Shop, either as owner, tenant or licensee. It is submitted that the Petitioner was also unable to give details about the so called electronics goods, worth Rs. 35 lakhs which were presently lying on the foot path. It was, therefore, submitted that a frivolous petition has been filed with an intention of obtaining order from this Court, since no orders were passed in favour of the Petitioner by the City Civil Court.