Sundarlal Asudomal Vishwani And 3 ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Ps ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 9367 Bom

 Judgment                                 1                                  apl851.20.odt




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 851/2020


 1]       Sundarlal Asudomal Vishwani,
          Aged about 60 years, Occ. Business,
          R/o. Seth Surajmal Ward, Malviya Ward,
          Gondia

 2]       Dinu Modku Chaoudhari,
          Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business,
          R/o. Dhakni, Kalaghota, Gondia

 3]       Yograj Ramprasad Maskare,
          Aged about 38 years, Occ. Business,
          R/o. Dhakni, Kalaghota, Gondia

 4]       Priya D/o Ramesh Karda @
          Priya W/o Ishan Chaudhari,
          Aged about 32 years,
          R/o. Gurunanak Garments,
          Tumsar Dist. Bhandara                                  .... APPLICANT(S)

                                    // VERSUS //

          State of Maharashtra,
          Through Police Station
          Gondia City, Gondia
                                                               .... NON-APPLICANT

  *******************************************************************
              Shri K.S. Motwani, Advocate for the applicant(s)
                Shri S.S. Doifode, APP for the non-applicant
  *******************************************************************

                           CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

JULY 16, 2021

JUDGMENT : (PER:- AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)

1] Heard.

  Judgment                                  2                                apl851.20.odt




 2]               RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.



 3]               This is a joint application filed by the applicants challenging

registration of the first information report and charge-sheet filed against the

applicant nos. 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 418,

420, 465, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4] The first information report came to be registered against the

applicant nos. 1 to 3 with the accusations that the applicant nos. 1 to 3 by

forging stamp paper and signature of the applicant no. 4 got executed

agreement to sell in their favour. The Investigating Agency recorded the

statements of the witnesses which support the applicant no. 4 - complainant.

The alleged forged documents are sent to forensic expert to compare the

signature of the applicant no. 4 on the said documents. The charge-sheet is

filed against the applicant nos. 1 to 3. The applicants have therefore filed the

present application stating that the applicant nos. 1 to 3 and the applicant

no. 4 who is the original complainant have arrived at settlement. Today, we

enquired with the applicant no. 4 who is present in the office of the Advocate

for the applicants. On specific question being asked to the applicant no. 4 as

to whether the signature on the agreement to sell, which is allegedly forged

by the applicant nos. 1 to 3, is her signature or not. The applicant no. 4

specifically stated that the signature on the agreement to sell executed in

favour of the applicant nos. 1 to 3 is not her signature. The applicant no. 4

reiterated the said answer again before us. We are therefore satisfied that the

Judgment 3 apl851.20.odt

ingredients of the offences under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal

Code which is supported by the statements of the witnesses do require trial.

Though there are judgments of this Court and the other Courts quashing

proceedings involving the offences under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian

Penal Code, but ultimately each case will have to be decided on its own facts.

There are cases where there is no evidence available to support the case of

the prosecution other than that of the complainant. In such event, since there

is no other evidence, it can safely be inferred that the prosecution will be

unable to prove the offence of forgery. Therefore, those decisions do not

constitute the precedent for the proposition that in the event of settlement of

a case involving non-compoundable offences like Sections 468 and 471 of the

Indian Penal Code, quashing should necessarily follow. The applicants could

not bring any decision of this Court or any other Court which deals with the

situation as in the present case where the complainant herself is stating twice

before this Court that the signature on the alleged document of agreement to

sell is not her signature. The power under Section 320 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure is enabling one. There is no compulsion in such cases like

the present one, for this Court to compound the offences as of right

particularly when we are satisfied about the ingredients of the offences being

prima-facie established which require trial.

5] In view of the categorical statement of the complainant that the

signature on the disputed agreement to sell is not hers, we do not find that

Judgment 4 apl851.20.odt

this is a fit case where this Court should exercise extra-ordinary power under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6] Hence, the criminal application is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

                   (JUDGE)                                  (JUDGE)




 ANSARI