Bombay High Court
Sundarlal Asudomal Vishwani And 3 ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Ps Gondia ... on 16 July, 2021
Author: Amit B. Borkar
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
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.
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2021 15:11:53 :::
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 ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2021 15:11:53 ::: 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 ::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2021 15:11:53 ::: 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
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2021 15:11:53 :::