KAMLAKAR RATNAKAR SHENOY Vs. RAMAKANT JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at Bombay alleging commission of offences punishable under section 197, 198, 217, 218, 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the petitioner in short is that one Mr.N.D.Patil (since deceased) was known to him. Through the said Mr.N.D.Patil, he came in contact with the accused (the 1st to 13th respondents) in the complaint. According to the petitioner the accused had floated various companies for the purpose of carrying on construction of residential and commercial premises in Nalasopara.

(2.) According to the petitioner, in the year 1993-94 he came to know that the 1st respondent and other accused were carrying on construction activities in violation of development rules and that they have committed forgery of valuable documents such as occupation certificates. According to him he realised that most of the buildings constructed by the accused persons were not permitted by the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the CIDCO") and the completion certificates were obtained from Municipal Council though the planning authority for that area was the CIDCO. It is alleged that the accused persons committed offences of cheating and forgery of occupation certificates to ensure that the flat purchasers are granted loan from instutions like HDFC, LIC etc. It is alleged that the petitioner approached Lokayukta with various grievances and Lokayukta directed the planning authority to file criminal proceedings. However, criminal proceedings were filed by the CIDCO only for offences punishable under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.

(3.) Therefore, the petitioner filed the aforesaid criminal complaint. On the said complaint filed by the petitioner, an order was passed under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In a detailed report submitted by the Investigating Officer, a conclusion was recorded that in the investigation no evidence could be found in support of allegations of commission of offences made by the petitioner. It as stated that it is not possible to determine whether the allegations of commission of offence were true or false. Therefore, the Investigating Officer prayed for grant of "C" summary. After a copy of the report was served to the petitioner, he filed objection petition before the learned Magistrate. By order dated 15th March 2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay, "C" summary was granted and the case was closed. The challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India is to the said order dated 15th March 2008 passed by the learned Magistrate.