IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.2016 of 2005 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM : R.C.Chavan, J. DATE : August 22, 2006. Heard Mr.A.S.Samarth, Adv. for the applicant and Mrs. Khade, A.P.P. for the Respondent no.1-State. Learned counsel for the applicant states that prosecution has been launched against his 73 years old client on the basis of the documents alleged to have been executed by the applicant and taking advantage of her old age. He also states that one of the documents i.e. “Hamipatra” is bogus and fabricated. Therefore, according to him, the proceedings before the learned Magistrate, whereby the learned Magistrate has issued process on the basis of these documents be quashed in view of the judgment of this Court in Anil B. Nadkarni and Others .vs. Amitesh Kumar, Deputy Commissioner of Police and Others reported at 2001 (4) Mh.L.J. 744. Even taking all the allegations, which the learned counsel for the applicant makes, to be true - there is no reason why the applicant cannot invoke revisional jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions against the order directing issuance of process. In the face of the admission that most of the documents except “Hamipatra” are executed by the applicant, though the applicant claims to have executed them under the circumstances which the applicant herself has to explain before the trial Court, it would not be possible to say that the allegations made are absurd or inherently improbable and that no proceedings can be initiated on the basis of such documents. In view of this, this is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the application is rejected. JUDGE ssj