1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3241 OF 2009 Kanchan K. Rathod ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.S.V. Marwadi i/b. Ms.Sunita Sharma for the Applicant. Mrs.P.P. Shinde, APP for the State. Mr.M.A. Shaikh for the Complainant. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 9, 2009 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the applicant, Counsel for the complainant and APP for the State. 2 The applicant apprehends arrest in connection with the complaint filed by one Rammoni vide C.R.No.184/2009 for the offence punishable under Sections 416, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the IPC. 2 3 The prosecution case is that the complainant Rajmani was residing in a hut which is situated in a slum and the slum redevelopment scheme was sanctioned by the competent authority. It is the case of the complainant that however, she was not given flat under the said Scheme and the applicant herein on the basis of the forged document was allotted a flat which was transferred in her name. 4 The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the applicant along with her husband was residing in the hut and the said hut was sold to her by the complainant by an agreement which was notorised and after the slum redevelopment scheme was sanctioned, the builder entered into an agreement with the present applicant which was registered on 28th September, 1998 and by the said agreement, the flat was allotted to her. According to the applicant by virtue of the Power of Attorney and other documents which were executed by 3 the complainant in the year 1994, 1998, rights were assigned in favour of the applicant. The learned Counsel submitted that the applicant had filed the suit in the City Civil Court to protect the possession in respect of the flat which was allotted to her and for an order of injunction restraining the complainant Rajmani from disturbing her possession. The learned Counsel submitted that in the said suit, an affidavit in reply was filed in the City Civil court by the complainant and in para 13 of the reply, the complainant had stated that the Sale Deed annexed to the plaint does not mention the room number and the signature appearing on the said Deed is not her signature. It is also stated that the signature appearing in the Irrevocable Power of Attorney is not her signature. Further it is stated that the signature shown in the affidavit also is not her signature. It is further stated that in the Ration Card her signature is shown i.e. Old Ration Card and the present Ration Card would be compared to verify the signature appearing on the documents. 4 Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that she had resiled from this stand and in the complaint she had alleged that being an illiterate woman, she could not sign and she had always put her thumb impression. 5 Counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, submitted that the reference is made in para 13 of the affidavit in reply of the complainant to the word  signature , she had actually put her thumb impression and not written the signature. The learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant being illiterate could not sign and always used to put her thumb impression. 6 Mr.Marwadi, learned Counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the xerox copy of the Ration Card which is annexed to the application and pointed out that apart from putting her thumb impression, the complainant had also put her signature over her thumb impression. He submitted 5 that therefore, the reference made in para 13 of the affidavit in reply was not a thumb impression but the signature put by her. 7 The learned Counsel for the complainant, however, again stated that the word  Rajmani over the thumb impression was forged by the applicant herein. 8 In the said suit, which was filed by the applicant, the City Civil Court was pleased to grant ad-interim relief and the parties were directed to maintain status quo. The said suit is pending in the City Civil Court. 9 The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submitted that the applicant s husband was arrested and later on, he has been released on bail. He submitted that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the purpose of finding out the details 6 of the forgery. 10 After having heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and APP for the State, I am of the view that taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances and more particularly, the dispute between the parties over the ownership of the disputed premises, essentially is a civil dispute and is pending adjudication before the civil court. So far as the allegation of forgery is concerned which is made by the complainant, without going into controversy whether the signature referred to in para 13 of the affidavit in reply is regarding the thumb impression or the written signature which is appearing over the thumb impression belongs to the complainant or not, in my view, the custodial interrogation is not necessary since the offence is pertaining to the documents on which reliance is placed by the applicant and disputed by the complainant. The said dispute could be resolved by obtaining an opinion of the 7 Handwriting Expert after obtaining the specimen signature/thumb impression of the complainant and the applicant herein. All the documents are in possession of the police and therefore, there is no question of recovery of any other documents from the present applicant. Another circumstance also which is relevant, in my view, is a fact that the present applicant had filed a suit in the City Civil Court and after a suit was filed, ad-interim order was granted and thereafter, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant which also reveals that possibly the complaint has been filed as an after thought. Under these circumstances, the applicant is entitled to get an order of anticipatory bail. 11 The applicant in the event of her arrest in connection with C.R.No.184/2009 registered with Amboli Police Station, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections 416, 420, 465, 467, 466, 470, 120B of the IPC, be released on bail in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one or two sureties in the like 8 amount. The applicant, however, shall report to the concerned police station as when called. The applicant shall not be called in the police station after sunset. 12 It is clarified that the observations made in the order are of prima facie nature and the trial court shall not be influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by this Court in this order. 13 The application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)