1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2423 OF 2008 Arackal Mandom Krishnan Manmadan & Ors. ..... ..... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... ..... Respondents. Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rahul Moghe for the Petitioners. Mr. A. S. Gadkari, APP for Respondent No.1. Mr. Rahul Kate with Mr.R.D.Suryawanshi for Respondent No.2. Ms. Rohini Dandekar for Respondent Nos.3 to 7. Mr. Pranav Badekar for Respondent No.10. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED : 13TH JANUARY, 2009. P.C.: The petitioners have sought stay of the investigation in a case being FIR No. 358/2008 registered by MRA Marg Police Station against the petitioners and also quashing of the FIR. 2. Mr. Jethmalani, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the case of the prosecution is that petitioner No.1, who is an advocate by profession, assisted petitioner Nos.2 and 3 to purchase the flat. The documents were executed for the owner, by the Power of Attorney holder, being respondent 2 No.10. The case of the complainant is that the document, namely, power of attorney was forged and false. Mr. Jethmalani further submits that the document was a notarized document and the advocate had confirmed from the Notary, whether such a document had been notarized or not on that day and after assuring that the document had been notarized, he went through the sale of the flat for his client, namely, petitioner Nos.2 and 3. He further submits that even if the document was forged, even then there was no criminal liability of the petitioners. 3. These are the matters which will have to be considered during investigation, which is at the preliminary stage. But, prima facie, we are of the view that even if the document in question is found to be forged there may not be any criminal liability on the petitioners. But we refrain to pass any order because it may prejudice authorities during investigation and also at the trial. The learned Public Prosecutor has assured, on instructions, that during investigation no coercive steps in the nature of arresting of the accused shall be made by the police against the petitioners till the investigation is complete. However, if the investigating agency feels during the course of investigation that the arrest of the petitioners was necessary, they shall not make arrest without seeking permission from the concerned Magistrate. 3 4. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)