1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Cri. Writ Petition No. 682/2009 Sudhir s/o Shrawan Narkhede & another Versus The State of Maharashtra & another Mr. Jaydeep Chatterji, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. V.D. Rakh, A.P.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] ORAL ORDER : - 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3 Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of counsel for both parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 4 The petitioners are seeking quashment of Crime No. 29/2009 registered by Jalgaon City Police Station against them. Kamlakar the respondent no.2 filed a complaint. He alleged that on 16/02/1987 one Koli sold two plots of land situated at Jalgaon to his father Gangadhar. Gangadhar was even put in possession of the plots. Despite this, Koli again sold the same plots to the present petitioner no.1. He executed once again a registered sale deed. The petitioner no.2 was the attesting witness for the said transaction. He thereby suggested that Koli and the petitioners have committed offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The question therefore is, taking allegations made in the F.I.R. as truthful, whether the offences alleged against the petitioners are prima facie seen? Let me assume 2 that the petitioner no.1 knew before hand that the plots in question were sold to the complainant’s father Gangadhar long back in 1987 and yet he purchased them from Koli the original owner. The document which parties executed is a registered document. This document can not be said to be forgery. No doubt, Koli could not have executed this document and the petitioner no.1 could not have purchased the property through this document. In a way, the document is sham and would not create any interest in favour of the petitioner no.1. Yet, the document in itself can not be said to be a forgery. So, offences punishable under section 465, 467, 468, 478 are not prima facie seen to have been committed by the parties to the transaction. 5 The second question is whether the petitioners have cheated the complainant or his father. The answer is in negative. The respondent no.2 or his father are not cheated because they are not fraudulently or otherwise induced to deliver any property to the petitioner or anyone else. The allegations thus do not constitute any offence punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The Police could not have registered the offence. The petitioner therefore, should succeed. 6 The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’. 7 Rule made absolute. Dt : 3rd May, 2010 [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] tsk/