1 Appln.: 3582/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3582 OF 2009 Vijaykumar Madanmohan Bhalla .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Mr. Rakesh Kumar i/by Sunil Kumar, Vijendra Sabra, Advocate for applicant. Mrs. M.R. Tidke, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 3rd March, 2011 P.C. 1. This is an application filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of F.I.R. vide C.R. No.8 of 2004 and for a direction to the Investigating Officer for release of the passport, of the applicant which has been deposited with the Investigating Officer, by way of a condition for grant of anticipatory bail by the Court of Sessions. Respondent No.2 is the original complainant, the first informant, who carries on business in the name of M/s Midland Construction India. 2. The complaint at C.R. No.8 of 2008 alleges commission of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 479 Indian Penal Code by the applicant. The facts constituting the 2 Appln.: 3582/2009 complaint are that the applicant who is the director of M/s Nilu Estate & Movers Private Limited had entered into a joint venture agreement with respondent no.2 for construction of a multi storied building and sharing of profits of the venture. He induced respondent no.2 to part with a total sum of Rs.1,11,01,000/-, part of which was paid by cheque and part in cash. After receipt of the money however, the applicant neither constructed the building nor returned the amount. Therefore in the year 1999, an offence came to be registered against the applicant vide C.R. No.12/99 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 479 Indian Penal Code. In that complaint, chargesheet has been filed and the case is pending in the Court of 19th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai. In June 2002, respondent no.2 visited the office of the applicant to demand return of the amount. At that time, the applicant claimed that the only amount payable to respondent no.2 was the amount of Rs.34,01,000/- which had been paid by cheque. In support of the claim, he produced confirmation letter from Midland Construction India. The said letter had been tendered by the applicant in the Income-Tax office. On enquiries in the Income Tax Office, it was learnt that such a letter was found in the file of the M/s Nilu Estate & Movers Private Limited, of which the applicant is a director. The reverse of the letter bears signature of one Harpreet Kaur. The letter is alleged to be a forged and fabricated letter prepared to evade payment of Income Tax by showing reduced receipt of Rs. 34,01,000/- from respondent no.2, when the actual amount 3 Appln.: 3582/2009 received was of Rs.1,11,01,000/-. Respondent no.2, therefore complained to the Police on the basis of which C.R. No.8 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 469 and 471 came to be registered. Thereafter chargesheet came to be filed in which the concerned Magistrate has passed an order of issuance of process. 3. The applicant alleges that the order of issuance of process by the learned Magistrate is erroneous, illegal and deserves to be quashed. He alleges in the application that the order was passed in a mechanical manner without appreciating that the dispute set out in the complaint was essentially a civil dispute and the complaint had been filed in order to settle a civil score. This according to the applicant amounts to abuse of process of law. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has resorted to invoke the extraordinary powers of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and not filed application for discharge under Section 239 Code of Criminal Procedure or even filed revision application under Section 399 Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sessions Court, Bombay, because of the restricted sphere of consideration of such applications. The applicant will not be able to rely upon material documents available to him, which affect the very sustainability of the prosecution case. He submits that the allegations made at the highest would amount to cheating the Income-Tax authorities and not the respondent no. 4 Appln.: 3582/2009 2. He further submits that the allegations cannot be allowed to stand in the face of the order passed by the Income-Tax authorities as regards the tax liability of the applicant relating to the very transaction with respondent no.2. 5. In find no substance in the contention that the allegations made in the complaint, at the highest would amount to the forgery alleged is in respect of the letter written on the letter head of M/s Midland Construction India Limited, firm of respondent no.2. The letter does not bear any date and bears signature of some Harpreet Kaur. Since the contents of the letter relate to the business transaction between the applicant and respondent no.2, it cannot be said that respondent no.2 is totally unconnected to the offence alleged. As regards the second contention that in view of the order passed by the Income Tax authorities, relating to the very transaction with respondent no.2, wherein the claim of the applicant of having received only a sum of Rs.34.00 lacs from respondent no.2 is accepted by the Income Tax authorities, the order can have no bearing whatsoever on the criminal proceedings wherein allegation of forgery are made. Therefore, at this preliminary stage of the proceedings, it would not be correct to quash the proceedings and deny an opportunity to the prosecution to establish the offence alleged. Hence, the application is dismissed. (Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J)