sat 1 wp 3201-2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3201 OF 2010 Mukesh Banshilal Shah & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.J.S. Kini i/b. Mr.Suresh Dubey for the Petitioners. Dr.F.R. Shaikh, APP for the State. Mr.A.A. Kumbhakoni with Mr.Karan Mehta i/b. Mr.V.V. Purwant for Respondent No.5. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. JULY 26, 2011 P.C. :- 1 We have heard Mr.Kini, the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Dr.Shaikh, the learned APP appears for the State of Maharashtra and Mr.Kumbhkoni, the learned Counsel with Mr.Purwant appears for respondent no.5. 2 Petitioner no.1 claims to be the trustee of sat 2 wp 3201-2010 the alleged trust created by the deceased i.e. Mrs.Madhaviben Dhirajlal Sagar in her purported Will dated 17th May, 2004. She died on 27th August, 2007. Petitioner nos.3 and 4 claim to be the near relations of the deceased and petitioner no.5 was witness to the alleged Will dated 17th May, 2004. Petitioner No.2 has already withdrawn, as per the oral instructions received by Mr.Kini. 3 The substantial reliefs prayed for in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are to direct the concerned Police Station to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint or complaints submitted by the petitioners and to quash and set aside the FIR registered as MECR No.7/2010 on the basis of the private complaint filed by respondent no.5. 4 Admittedly, respondent no.5 has approached the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide a sat 3 wp 3201-2010 private complaint and succeeded in obtaining an order Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and consequently, MECR No. 7/2010 has been registered against the petitioners. Respondent no.5 claims that the deceased executed a Will in his favour on 29th December, 2006 and on the demise of the executor, he has filed Testamentary Petition No.1030/2007 on or about 19th November, 2007 for obtaining a probate. We are also informed by Mr.Kini that petitioner no.1 has also filed Testamentary Petition No.401/2010 after this petition was filed. Thus, both the parties have already resorted to proceedings to obtain a probate on the basis of the purported respective Wills of the deceased. Both of them claim that the signatures of the deceased were either forged or she did not sign the Will or she was not physically fit to sign the Will. The dispute between the parties is thus centered around the Will dated 17th May, 2004 and 29th December, 2006 and it would be decided in the pending testamentary petitions on the original side of this Court. sat 4 wp 3201-2010 5 In these circumstances, if the petitioner has any complaint of an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code against respondent no.5, he ought to be relegated to the remedy of filing a private complaint and therefore, we do not find any reason to show our indulgence to entertain this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6 The petition is dismissed with liberty as is available in law. (U.D. SALVI, J) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J)