1 wp2809.09.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2809 OF 2009 Smt. Chandabai Dhulchand Bafna ....Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. Sagar Talekar with Mr. A.A. Sonak and Mr. Chandhavi for the Petitioner. Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 18th August, 2010 P.C.: 1 We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner at length. We have perused the documents including the sale-deed registered in the year 2008. It is the case of the Petitioner that purportedly on 10th April, 1996, she appointed Mr. Jitendra Hemant Pamnani, as her power of attorney and on the same day, he executed an agreement of sale in favour of his sister. 2 Admittedly, as of now a Civil Suit has been filed by the Petitioner which is registered as Special Civil Suit No. 219 of 2009 for the relief of 2 wp2809.09.sxw ssm declaration as well as possession of the suit property. 3 The Petitioner approached the Commissioner of Police, Nashik on or about 1st August, 2009 and recorded her complaint against Smt. Ishwari Hemant Pamnani, Jitendra Hemant Pamnani and Hemant Narayandas Pamnani for the offences punishable under Sections 259, 260, 263, 263-A, 403, 406, 420, 423, 424, 464, 468, 470, 471 and 472 read with Section 34 of IPC. Though belatedly, CR No. 38 of 2010 came to be registered with the Sarkarwada Police Station at Nashik. In the meanwhile, on 17th September, 2009, Respondent No.1 addressed a letter to the Petitioner and informed her that on preliminary investigation, it was noticed that the dispute between the parties was of civil nature and in any case a Civil Suit No. 219 of 2009 filed by her was pending before the competent court. 4 Mrs. Shinde, the learned APP, has invited out attention to the report dated 13/03/2010 submitted by the Sarkarwada Police Station to the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the said report also indicates that the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, directed the Police Station to register the same. As the CR has been registered, the Sarkarwada Police Station is required to file its report before the competent court under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. 3 wp2809.09.sxw ssm 5 The main prayer in this Petition is for directions to register the CR and that prayer does not survive as of now. At the same time, we do not find any merit and even any prima facie case made out for giving directions to Respondent No.3 to initiate any action against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and the Petitioner’s remedy is in the pending Civil Suit. 6 The Petition is rejected. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)