Bombay High Court
Arif Hussain Ali Dolaria vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 2 February, 2024
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
25-APL-722-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 722 OF 2022
Arif Hussain Ali Dolaria ...Applicant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra And Anr ...Respondents
Mr. R. M. Haridas i/by Mr. sidheshwar N. Biradar Advocate for
Applicant.
Mr. Clifford Mirtis Advocate for Respondent.
Mr. Y. Y. Dabake, APP for Respondent-State.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 2nd FEBRUARY, 2024
P.C.:-
1. Heard.
2. The applicant challenges the order issuing process passed by learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra, for offence under Sections,
465, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"). Complaint is
filed by Respondent No.2.
3. The complainant had alleged that acknowledgment card was
submitted by accused in RAE Suit No.384/813 of 2008 and 383/812 of
2008. The said acknowledgment does not bear the signature of
complainant's father. The accused forged signature on packet of service of
suit before Small Causes Court.
Dnyaneshwar Ethape, P.A. 1
::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 03:20:20 :::
25-APL-722-2022.doc
4. The submission of the learned Advocate for Applicant is that, the Suit
RAE No.384/813 of 2008 was filed by landlords against Lawrence Rodrick
before Small Causes Court for handing over possession of premises. The
Defendants were not occupying premises. Summons was issued. Bailiff
submitted report. The tenant Lawrence Rodrick died. LR's were brought on
record. Attempts were made to serve summons. Bailiff submitted report.
Plaintiff served Defendants by substituted service. Bailiff pasted summons
on door. On the basis of bailiff report, the Court proceeded expartee. Suit
was decreed by Judgment and order dated 4 th December 2009. Execution
proceedings were initiated. The Respondent No.2 filed application for
setting aside decree. Application was dismissed and execution proceedings
were allowed vide order dated 10th August 2010. Appeal preferred by
Respondent No.2 was dismissed by order dated 11 th February 2011. Writ
Petition challenging orders was dismissed vide order dated 28 th July 2016.
The SLP challenging above order was dismissed by Apex Court vide order
dated 5th September 2016. There is no forgery by applicant.
5. Learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 submitted that, the grounds
urged by applicant are required to be considered during trial. The accused
has committed forgery. The Respondent No.2 has filed private complaint.
Process is issued. Evidence before charge has to be completed. At the
most, petitioner could avail the remedy after completion of evidence before
Dnyaneshwar Ethape, P.A. 2
::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 03:20:20 :::
25-APL-722-2022.doc
charge at this stage, proceedings shall not be quashed.
6. The complainant alleges forgery of acknowledgment in Civil
Proceedings initiated against tenants. Decree was passed in favour of
plaintiff (accused). It is confirmed by Appellate Court, this Court and Apex
Court.
ORDER
(i) Arguable questions are raised.
(ii) Rule.
(iii) There shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c)
till final disposal of the application.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
