Nutan. D. Sardessai, J.

Heard Shri H. Arsekar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Shri S.R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.1 and Shri R. Menezes, learned Advocate for the respondent no.2-original complainant.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Shri S.R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of the respondent no.1 and Shri R. Menezes, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent no.2.

3. Shri H. Arsekar, learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the respondent no.2 apparently at the instance of her husband and supported by his other daughter and her husband were motivated by greed and precipitated the FIR against him. He had lost his wife on 7.5.2012 and since then he was surviving on his own and totally dependent on his belongings and assets which he had collected during his lifetime. The respondent no.2 along with her sister Veena had filed a Suit for injunction before the Civil Judge Junior Division at Margao against the petitioner and his third daughter Vibha Naik and son-in-law alleging that upon the death of his wife, they had succeeded to the movable and immovable properties of their late mother which were acquired by her during her lifetime and that the petitioner was intending to dispose off the estate. The respondent no.2 and her sister Veena had even gone to the extent of making allegations against the petitioner that he along with his elder daughter Vibha and son-in-law had dishonestly removed the gold lying in the bank locker of the petitioner. The Civil Court had not granted any ad-interim relief in favour of the respondent no.2 and preferred an appeal before the District Court, Margao which was dismissed by the order dated 3.10.2013. The respondent no.2 not being successful in causing harassment to the petitioner had filed the complaint dated 9.11.2013 against the petitioner as also against his elder daughter Vibha and the respondent no.1 without the application of mind had registered an FIR against the petitioner, his elder daughter and the son-in-law.

4. It was also his contention that the complaint was not only false and frivolous but it did not also disclose the commission of any cognisable offence nor any offence was made out on the basis of such a complaint filed by the respondent no.2. The locker referred to in the suit and also in the complaint belongs to the petitioner along with its contents. He had on account of his old-age and the medical condition joined the respondent no.2 as the Co-operator in respect of the locker maintained by him with the Central Bank of India, Margao Branch and taking advantage of that fact, the respondent no.2 was staking a claim to the locker and its contents. The petitioner had been made to suffer for no fault and to undergo physical and mental trauma on account of the frivolous and mischievous proceedings filed by the respondent no.2 along with his other daughter. He had provided for the respondent no.2 with all the day to day requirements of life apart from incurring the expenses of her marriage and also parted with the gold ornaments and other gifts as per the culture. He had also given a Maruti Zen Car to the husband of the respondent no.2 at his instance. The Central Bank of India vide its letter dated 20.11.2013 had certified that the Safe Deposit Locker bearing no.121 was opened by the petitioner and his wife on 19.10.1992 and the same was operated by either or survivor. The respondent no.2 independently or with her husband had no claim in respect of the locker which belongs to the petitioner and his wife, since deceased. The complaint as filed by the respondent no.2 is without any basis and does not disclose the commission of a cognisable offence. The respondent no.1 had committed a jurisdictional error in law as well as in facts in order to appreciate a purported complaint which did not disclose the commission of a