The main legal point established is that a second complaint on the same allegations can only be entertained in exceptional circumstances and when the core of both complaints is not the same.

JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Writ Petition is heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties.

2. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking quashing of an First Information Report (FIR) dated 05/03/2015, registered against him for an offence punishable under Sections 193, 211, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), on the basis of an order dated 24/02/2015 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The order was passed by the Magistrate on a complaint dated 04/02/2015 filed by the Respondent No.2 alleging certain acts on the part of the Petitioner which had the ingredients of the said offences. The Petitioner has also sought quashing of charge-sheet filed in pursuance of registration of the said FIR.

3. The principal ground for pressing the prayer for quashing of the FIR and the charge-sheet is that the Respondent No.2 (original complainant) had filed an identical complaint earlier in the year 2013 before the Magistrate, which was pending consideration and filing of the said subsequent complaint in the year 2015 on the same allegations was not maintainable.

4. The facts discernible from the material placed on record, the Writ Petition and the reply are that the Respondent No.2 along with his brothers claimed to have inherited a flat in a Society, wherein the Petitioner was at the relevant time functioning as the Secretary. The Petitioner also has a flat in the said Society. Although one of the relatives of the Respondent No.2 had raised an objection to the claim of the said Respondent and his brothers, the dispute was settled amicably and accordingly, the Respondent No.2 and his brothers had sought transfer of the Share Certificate pertaining to the flat in question in their name. The thrust of the allegations levelled by Respondent No.2 against the Petitioner is that while functioning as the Secretary of the Society, the Petitioner illegally exerted pressure on the Respondent No.2 and his brothers pertaining to issuance of duplicate Share Certificate of the flat, as the original Share Certificate was misplaced. The Petitioner allegedly misused his position as Secretary of the Society and pressurized the brothers of Respondent No.2 to enter into an agreement of sale of the said flat to the Petitioner on a price much less than the market price.

5. The Respondent No.2 alleged that subsequently the Petitioner further reduced the amount of consideration and forced the brothers of Respondent No.2 to sign a memorandum of understanding dated 21/02/2014 to sell the flat at reduced consideration amount of Rs.65 Lakhs, recording that a token amount of Rs.5000/- was paid by the Petitioner.

6. As dispute arose between the parties, a civil suit for decree of specific performance was filed by the Petitioner before this Court, wherein an order of status-quo was passed. The said suit is still pending consideration. In the interregnum, allegations and counter allegations were made by the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 against each other. In the year 2010, the Petitioner had filed a private complaint before the Magistrate claiming that the Respondent No.2 and his brothers had cheated him and he sought registration of offence under Section 420 of the IPC. The complaint was dismissed and the Revision Application filed there against was also rejected.

7. On the other hand, the Respondent No.2 also filed a private complaint on 17/05/2013, against the Petitioner before the Magistrate alleging that he had committed offences inter-alia under Sections 409 and 420 of the IPC. The Respondent No.2 stated facts in detail from the beginning till filing of the complaint as regards the alleged actions of the Petitioner and how he had duped the Respondent No.2 and his brothers by misusing his position of Secretary of the Society. This complaint was pending inquiry. Instead of directing investigation under