{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4540 OF 2009 Vijay c/o Chhaganrao Gudekar Age-45 years, Occ-labour R/o Sangram Nagar, Bus Stand Road, Jalna APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector, Police Station badnapur Dist-Jalna RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 140 OF 2010 Arun c/o Chhaganrao Gudekar Age-50 years, Occ-Agriculture R/o Deogaon Tanda, Tq-Badnapur, Dist-Jalna APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector, Police Station badnapur Dist-Jalna RESPONDENT ....... Mr.P.V.Ambade, Advocate for applicants Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] {2} DATE: 15th January 2010 PER COURT: 1. By these applications, the applicants have approached this Court for their release on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with M case No.7/2009 registered with Badnapur police station for an offence punishable u/s 120-B, 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 of the IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by the submissions of learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation carried out till today. 3. It appears that the complainant, who are sisters of present applicants, have filed a private compliant against the present applicants and 7 others in the Court of JMFC, Badnapur bearing RCC No.58/2009 on which order to carry out investigation u/s 156 (3) came to be passed. Pursuant to the said directions, it appears that the said offence came to be registered. Perusal of the complaint shows that with the consent of the complainants and others, the ancestral property belonging to the father of the applicants, has been sold by applicants and others to which the complainants are shown as consenting parties. It is alleged that at the time of obtaining said consent, assurance was given to them by the applicants that amount of their share would be paid to them, however the same has not been paid till today and hence the {3} complaint. 4. Considering the rival submissions and in the light of the fact that the recitals of the documents do not found place the assurance, as alleged. In the premise, it is necessary to consider whether there is any otherwise oral agreement to that effect. In the compliant name of Sub Registrar is mentioned as to in his presence the assurance was given. However, considering the entire episode and the manner in which the complaint is drafted, it appears that it is matter relating to civil dispute and the parties to settle their score of civil dispute have filed the criminal case. In the premise, case is made out to exercise discretion u/s 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5. In the result, both the applications are allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with M. Case No. 7/2009 they be released on bail on their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each and on executing PR bond in the like amount. The applicants are directed to cooperate with the investigating agency and to attend the police station, if required. This protection is granted till filing of the charge sheet. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln4540-09