1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2241 OF 2007 Narendra Mulani. ........... .. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... ... Respondents. -: ALONG WITH :- INTERVENTIN APPLICATION NO. 400 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2241 OF 2007 Narendra Mulani. ........... .. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... ... Respondents. A N D Mrs.Kirti Jagdish Mulani... ... ... Intervenor. -: ALONG WITH :- CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2290 OF 2007 Mrs. Lessi (Lissy) @ Nisha George.... ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... ... Respondents. -: ALONG WITH :- CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 291 OF 2008 Mr. Narendra Mulani & Anr. .... ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... ... Respondents. 2 -: ALONG WITH :- CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 294 OF 2008 Jagdish Pratap Mulani. .... ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... ... Respondents. Mr. A. Desai, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Niranjan Pandit, Mr. Harshad Bhadbade, Mr. T. Kapadia and Ms. Bharti Dalvi i/by M/s. Joy Legal Consultant for Petitioners in W.P. Nos.2241/07, 291/08, 294/08 and Intervention Application. Mr. Subhodh Desai with Satyadev Pandey for the Petitioner in W.P. 2290/07. Mrs. P.H.Kantharia, Addl. P.P. for State in W.P.Nos.2241/07 & 294/08. Mrs. A. S. Pai, Addl. P.P. for State in W.P.Nos.2290/07 & 291/08. Mr. Navin Chomal for Respondent No.2 in all writ petitions. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI and S. A. BOBDE, JJ. DATED : 4TH MARCH, 2008. P. C.: It appears that these matters presumably emerge from a dispute between the husband and wife and since the disputes continuing for a long time it has given rise to lots of litigations. We have heard these matters together and the same are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2241 of 2007 has been filed by accused No.3, brother-in-law of respondent No.2, in a case registered by the Police on a direction of the Magistrate under Section 157 of the Indian Penal 3 Code and the case has been numbered as Complaint No. 86/M of 2006. 3. The Writ Petition No.2290 of 2007 has been filed by accused No.2 in the same case. 3. The Writ Petition No. 294 of 2008 has been filed by the husband, accused No.1 in the same case, seeking to quash the said criminal case. 4. The Writ Petition No. 291 of 2008 has been filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the F. I. R. No. 95/M of 2007 which is also registered by the police on the direction of the Magistrate in Criminal Complaint No. 56/M of 2007 against the petitioners. The complainant, in both the above criminal cases, is the wife of accused No.1 in the first complaint. 5. At the outset, it may be noted that the petitioner in writ petition No. 294 of 2008 does not press the petition for quashing of the complaint against him. But has submitted that since he has obtained bail in anticipation from his arrest from a competent court and the court has imposed certain conditions while granting bail and he has complied with those conditions and he is making himself available to the police for investigation, there is no necessity of keeping in force the “Look Out Circular”, which has been issued by the police, which becomes a source of embarrassment and harassment for him. Since the Sessions Court 4 granted him bail in anticipation of arrest and conditions have been imposed ensuring his availability to the investigative agency and also to the Court as and when required, we direct that this notice of “Look Out Circular” issued by the police be withdrawn. 6. Coming to the case of accused No.2 and accused No.3 in the same complaint, which has been challenged by way of writ petition No. 2241 of 2007, we do not find the complaint discloses any offence against either accused No.2 or accused No.3. The relevant averments in paragraphs 7, 9 and 10 in the complaint, on which reliance has been placed with respect of alleged offences having been committed by accused No.2 and accused No.3 are as below: “ “I say that before taking any action / objection regarding illicit relation between Accused Nos.1 and 2, I requested / complained to each and every family member as well as close relatives and friends of Accused No.1 regarding the relation between them and my in laws and Accused No.3 assured me that nothing will happen to you and Accused No.1 will give up his illicit affair with accused No.2.” “I say that the Accused No.3 who is the real brother of the Accused No.1 and is financially supporting Accused No.1 and both of them put my in-laws as well as me and my daughter to great shame and sorrow in the society because of the affairs of Accused Nos.1 and 2 which they are flaunting openly. My in laws, my self and my daughter asked Accused No.1 several times to give up this affair and also asked Accused No.3 not to support this affair but neither Accused No.1 nor Accused No.3 ever listened to us. Due to the objection taken by me, my daughter and my in laws Accused No.1 has put me under great physical and mental torture and trauma and is regularly beating me up. Accused No.3 being a director of multi national firm Accenture is very rich and influential and by his own admission is 5 transferring vast sums of money to the accounts of Accused No.1 who in return is transferring the property to be inherited by Radhika to Accused No.3.” “In fact Accused No.1 went on holidays to five star hotels many times when our daughter was still recovering. When Accused No.3 and his wife went back to USA they visited my daughter who was bed ridden and just returned from hospital to her friend's place but inspite of seeing her bad condition, still Accused No.1 and his wife refused to take her to their house and did not even give her money for medicine with great difficulties and on wheelchair my daughter had to go and beg the money from students on college campus. So Accused Nos.1 and 3 have been heartless towards me, my in laws and my daughter and in collusion have deprived me and my daughter all the respect, care and affection and financial help we are entitled to and grabbed all the property and inheritance we are entitled to and put us under great mental and physical torture.” This is all what has been stated in the complaint. 7. In fact while going through the assertions made in the complaint, we do not find that these assertions disclose any offence having been committed by accused No.3. About accused No.2, only it is stated that she claimed to be the wife of accused No.1 and there are illicit relations between accused No.1 and accused No.2. We do not find that even if these allegations are taken to be true, there can be any offence attributed to accused No.2. Another allegation against accused No.2, to which our attention is drawn is contained paragraph 21 of the complaint. The relevant portion reads thus: “I say that Accused No.1 and myself are members of CCI and Radio Club since many years. Instead of taking me, Accused No.1 is taking Accused No.2 to these clubs and spending so much 6 money that he has even defaulted CCI and so our membership is closed over there. In fact, Accused Nos.1 and 2 spent Rs.15,000/- on drinks alone at one sitting at CCI Club and refused to pay the CCI bill.” Even if these allegations are also taken to be true, they do not disclose any offence having been committed by accused No.2. 8. The law is well settled with respect to the powers of this court to quash the FIR or quash the criminal proceedings pending before the Court and if the Court finds that the allegations levelled in the complaint, even if taken to be true and also proved, whether they would constitute an offence or not, would be the point to be considered. Applying this test, we do not find that even if the allegations levelled against accused No.2 and accused No.3 are ultimately proved to be correct, that would not lead to any conviction of the accused persons. Therefore, we quash the Criminal Complaint No. 86/M of 2006 with respect to accused No.2 and accused No.3. 9. Then comes the writ petition No.291 of 2008. This complaint has also been filed by the same person, who had filed the earlier complaint. The accused No.1 in this complaint is the brother- in-law (complainant's husband's brother). Respondent No.2 herein is the wife of accused No.1 in the complaint. It appears that the family has a joint family property and it includes a house, where there was a room in which the electric 7 meter was in the name of the grand father of accused No.1. The electricity charges were being paid by the complainant since the year 1991. The grand father has since died. But the complainant came to know that the installation has been changed from the name of the grand father into the name of accused No.1. On making inquiry, the complainant came to know that a “No Objection Certificate” for change of name in the installation on behalf of the grand father, who was dead, had been produced and the installation had been changed into the name of accused No.1. Therefore, she contended that it was a case of forgery. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 live in America along with his wife, petitioner No.2. Both the petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Criminal Case No. 56/M of 2007. On the date on which the “No Objection Certificate” was allegedly executed by petitioner No.1, he was away in America along with his wife. Therefore, there was no question of his having committed any forgery. In any case, he was member of the family. The property was a joint family property. The installation was never in the name of the complainant, but in the name of the deceased grand father and even if somebody puts in grand father's signature, it would not amount to forgery. However, these are matters which cannot be gone into by this Court in this proceeding. The 8 matter of this nature can be gone into by the police in investigation or by the Court at the time of filing charge sheet. The petitioner No.1 is not deprived of showing to the police during investigation that on the date when the documents, which are alleged to be forged, were executed, the accused No.1 was not in India. Therefore, as far as accused No.1 is concerned the criminal complaint cannot be quashed. However, as far as accused No.2 is concerned, we have not found that this complaint discloses any offence against her. The only averments made in the complaint against her in paragraph 29, is that she broken lock of third floor room and got into the house without the permission of the complainant and put the name plate of “Narendra Mulani”, who is her husband. Admittedly, the complainant also states that accused No.1 and accused No.2 both live in America. But even in the complaint, no date has been mentioned as to when the accused No.1 or the accused No.2 had come to India and signed the “No Objection Certificate” and even if it is taken to be true that the lock was broken by the accused No.2, we do not feel it constituted any offence. In this view of the matter, we find that accused No.2 has been only roped in to pressurise accused No.1. Even the father of the complainant's husband is still alive and he has filed a civil suit in the City Civil Court at Bombay, which is pending decision, wherein the father- in-law of the complainant 9 has sought a decree of eviction against the complainant. The property belongs to the father of accused No.1 in this petition and who is also the father- in-law of the complainant. Therefore, the Complaint No.56/M of 2007 is quashed as far as accused No.2 is concerned. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that accused No.1 is living in America and a “Look Out Circular” is creating harassment and, therefore, it should be withdrawn. We are told by the learned Public Prosecutor that so far the accused No.1 has not presented himself before the investigative agency. Since he is in America, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the notice can be given to his Solicitors in Mumbai 15 (fifteen) days before he is required by the Police. Therefore, we direct that if the police needs his presence, the police may give him 15 days notice in writing to appear before the police. 12. In the circumstances, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of in terms aforesaid. 13. In so far as intervention application is concerned, since the petition itself is disposed of, the same does not survive and is disposed of as such. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (S. A. BOBDE, J.)