Siddhesh Chandrakant Keny vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 5518 Bom

                                             1/3
                                                                           11.WP.936.2022.doc


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                         WRIT PETITION NO. 936 OF 2022

Mr. Siddhesh Chandrakant Keny                                    ..Petitioner
      Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                                  .. Respondents

Mr. Kishore Patil i/b. Mr. Sameer Mhatre for Petitioner. Ms. M. H. Mhatre, APP for Respondent/State. Mr. Sandeep Barve i/b. B. K. Barve & Co. for the Respondent No. 2

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE & SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ

DATED : 13th JUNE, 2023 P.C.:

1. Heard.

2. The Petitioner came to be charge-sheeted for an offence

punishable u/s. 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w. 34 in Crime No. 139

of 2019.

3. The case of the prosecution against the Petitioner is that the

Complainant - Rupa, on 24/05/2019, alleged that the subject

matter of the property viz. plot area was given in possession of

the Petitioner. However, the grandfather of the Petitioner forged

the documents (by putting forged thumb impression) and has

created right in the said property thereby further having eligibility

under the SRA scheme in his favour.

akn                                            1/3



                                                                               11.WP.936.2022.doc

4. As far as the aforesaid claim of the Complainant is

concerned, same appears to have investigated into and based on

the report of the handwriting expert, the Petitioner came to be

charge-sheeted.

5. The fact remains that the document which is formed to be

the basis for registration of the offence was neither authored by

the Petitioner nor the fact about such document being forged was

sought to be used by the Petitioner inspite of having such

knowledge for the purpose of commission of the offence in

question can be inferred from the investigation paper. At least the

Complainant i.e. the Respondent herein so also the learned APP is

not in a position to demonstrate the very satisfaction of the

ingredients of section under which the Petitioner is charge-

sheeted.

6. The entire dispute appears to be civil in nature as the

Complainant herself admitted that the Petitioner was in

possession of the property and since long the Petitioner was

inducting tenants in the property.

7. In the aforesaid eventuality satisfaction of the necessary

ingredients for the offence punishable u/s. 420, 465, 467, 468,

471 r/w 34 of IPC cannot be inferred against the Petitioner.

akn                                             2/3



                                                                    11.WP.936.2022.doc

8. Apart from above, for the alleged act of forgery as has been

committed by the grandfather of the Petitioner, the Petitioner

cannot be said to have inherited the criminal liability and to face

the prosecution in question.

9. That being so, the prosecution of the Petitioner in our opinion

is not only false one but also the same is on the basis of the

existence of civil dispute.

10. Drawing support from the judgment of the Apex Court in the

matter of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.

reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, we deem it appropriate to allow the

Petition. The charge-sheet filed against the Petitioner for the

offence punishable u/s. 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w. 34 of IPC in

Crime No. 139 of 2019 is hereby quashed.

11. The Petition stands allowed in the above terms.

     (SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J)                 (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)




akn                                    3/3