{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2450 OF 2010 Ramdas Pralhad Sakkarwar & Another APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. Vivek Bhavthankar h/f Mr.S.G.Rudrawar, Adv for applicants Mr. P.P.More, APP for respondent State Mr. B.N.Gadegaonkar, Advocate for original complainant ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 19th July 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present criminal application, the applicants have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.70/2010 registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Nanded for an offence punishable u/s 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 181 and 182 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by the learned APP followed by learned counsel for the original {2} complainant. 3. It appears that the present offence is registered for the alleged offence punishable u/s 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 181 and 182 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the order passed by Learned CJM, Nanded to carry out investigation u/s 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code in a private complaint lodged by original complainant bearing Miscellaneous Application No.111/2010. 4. It appears that the original complainant had sold a property admeasuring South-North 150 ft. and East-West 100 ft, out of plot No.45 from village Wadi (Bk) in agricultural land survey No.198 vide registered sale deed dated 01.02.2009. Admittedly, the said sale deed was submitted for registration with the office of Sub- Registrar, and accordingly it was executed and registered in the said office. It further appears that the applicant No.1 has filed Civil Suit against the present complainant bearing RCS No.96/2010. The said suit was in respect of property purchased by applicant No. 1 under the said sale deed. In the said suit, a photo copy of the said sale deed was produced by applicant No.1. In the said photo copy of the sale deed, description of the property purchased appeared to be changed. After receipt of suit summons, original complainant appeared and noticed that the sale deed is changed. It appears that the changed sale deed was also having the seal of the office of the sub-registrar, land records. It also appears that the {3} said seal is used to forge the document and the said document is also produced before civil court. Thus, there is altercation in the original document by using seal of a public office. Hence, the private complaint came to be lodged. During the investigation, original document executed and submitted for registration in the office of sub-registrar was seized so also the document on the basis of which photo copy is prepared and submitted before the civil court, is seized from the possession of the applicants. Now, both the documents are before this Court. 5. Perusal of both the documents demonstrate that apart from material change in the description of the property in the sale deed, an official seal is used by the applicants and on the basis of said the seal the document is prepared. It appears that the applicants have not only forged the document, but also produced the same before the civil court. Thus, prima facie, it appears that there is material alteration in the contents of the document and the same is also used in the administration of justice. Thus, prima facie, it appears that the applicants have committed an offence for which complaint was lodged before CJM, Nanded and cognizance is taken by the learned CJM and issued direction to carry out investigation. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants has urged that as the original documents are now in custody of the investigating agency and the applicants are ready to cooperate with the {4} investigating agency and hence custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary. 7. Apart from the fact that the application is opposed by learned APP and learned counsel for original complainant, it also requires to consider that as to how a seal of the office of sub Registrar, Nanded came in possession of the applicants, which is used by them for forging the document. In the premise, to ascertain that whether there is any possibility that the applicants have used the seal in the connivance with the staff working in the office of Joint-Registrar, Nanded, and any staff from the office of Joint-Registrar is involved in the offence, and to unearth the racket, custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary. In the result, the application which is sans merits, stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2450-10 {5} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2699 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2450 OF 2010 Njarat s/o Vishwanath Raminwar APPLICANT VERSUS Ramdas Pralhad Sakkarwar & Others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.B.N.Gadegaonkar, Advocate for applicant Mr. Vivek Bhavthankar h/f Mr.S.G.Rudrawar, Adv for R-1 and R-2 Mr. P.P.More, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 19th July 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondents. Mr.Bhavthankar accepts notice for respondents No.1 and 2 and learned APP accepts for respondent No.3 2. By the present application, u/s 301 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant seeks leave to allow him to assist learned APP in opposing criminal application No.2450/2010. For the reasons stated in the application and as there is no objection of {6} the respondents, the present application is allowed to the extent that learned counsel for the applicant is allowed to assist the learned APP. Accordingly, application stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2450-10