DHIRAJLAL P DESAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the original complainant. He has filed a complaint alleging commission of an offence punishable under section 13 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'MOFA' for the sake of convenience) read with section 406 IPC and 420 of the IPC against the respondent nos.2 to 6 herein. The respondent no.2 is a partnership firm doing business as builders, developers and promoters, and the respondent nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 are the partners of the respondent no.2. The learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, after examining the petitioner on oath, formed an opinion that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the respondents in respect of an offence punishable under section 13 of the MOFA read with section 14 thereof. Accordingly, by an order dated 9th March 2012, he issued process against the respondent nos.2 to 6, requiring them to appear and answer to the accusation of an offence punishable under section 13 of the MOFA read with section 14 thereof. Being aggrieved thereby, the respondent nos.2 to 6 moved the Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai by filing an application for revision, praying that the order issuing process as passed by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, be quashed and set aside. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai, by an order dated 3rd February 2014, allowed the revision application and set aside the order issuing process as passed by the Magistrate. The Addl. Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the learned Magistrate had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and try the alleged offences. Consistently with this view, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge directed the Magistrate to pass an order for return of the complaint for presentation before the proper Court. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition invoking the inherent powers of this Court saved by section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the jurisdiction conferred upon it by Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it was decided to decide the petition finally at the admission stage itself.

(3.) Accordingly, Rule was issued, by consent of the respondent, was made returnable forthwith, and on the respondents waiving the service thereof, the petition was heard finally.