1 CR.APL NOS.3261/2005 & 1049/2005 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 3. APPLN/3261/2005 SATWARRAO CHAMPATRAO BHURE [Criminal] V/S STATE OF MAH AND ANR WITH APPLN/1049/2005 MOHD AZAMATULAH KHAN ABDUL HAMID KHAN V/S STATE OF MAH AND ORS ------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. P.V.Mandlik, Senior Counsel, and Mr.R.P.Bhoomkar, Adv., for respective applicants. Mr.B.J.Sonawane, APP for respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:June 17th, 2011 1. Learned Judge has sent a communication/statement of the Superintendent that there is no final summary report. 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel and Mr.R.P.Bhoomkar, learned Advocate, seeking quashment of FIR in Crime No. 199/2004 registered at Police Station, Hingoli. 3. A complaint dt.17.11.2004 was registered at City Police Station, Hingoli, recorded by Kamlakar Sudhakarrao Hattekar, Taluka Inspector 2 CR.APL NOS.3261/2005 & 1049/2005 of Land Records, Hingoli. Complainant alleged, the accused/applicant Bhure was working as Cadestral Surveyor in the City Service Office in Hingoli. At that time property CTS No.3869 was recorded in the name of Mutwalli Masjid Tofkhana, however, a certified copy, which was issued, showed name of Secretary, Jamia Arbia Talimul Kuream Urdu School, Tofkhana, by creating sub division of the property and an area of 270.0 sq.mts. was carved out from area of 638.1 Sq.Mts., CTS No.3689. Such P.R. card was allegedly issued under signature and authority of accused No.1 Bhure in collusion with applicant Mohd.Azamatullah Khan, at the instance of office bearers of the said school. The report informed, there was no application for a certified copy, no entry regarding payment of fees, collection thereof. Inspite of this, such copy was indeed issued under the signature of the applicant Bhure. 4. Based on representation by the aggrieved persons, a detailed inquiry was caused and, thereafter, responsibility for issuance of such 3 CR.APL NOS.3261/2005 & 1049/2005 fabricated, vague P.R. card was fixed to the applicant Bhure since it was done for the benefit of the Secretary or President of the institution, he was arrayed as accused in Crime No.199/2004. 5. Learned Senior Counsel submits, the events of issuance of certified copy are long back of 1988 and the matter is reported after virtually 18 years to the Police that too after retirement of his client. Learned Counsel submits, his client had no role in issuing such certified copy nor the signature matched to his admitted signature. Learned Senior Counsel submits, the prosecution is a harassment to retired applicant, an erstwhile Government employee. 6. Mr.Bhoomkar, learned Counsel submits that, RCS No.107/2001 was moved by Madarsa Jamiya Arbiya Talimul Quarran Committee Topkhana, Hingoli, tq. Dist.Hingoli, through its President Azamatullakhan as plaintiff against the State, the City Survey Officer, Hingoli, and Masjid Topkhana Committee, Hingoli, as defendants. Said suit was decreed by orders dt.30th June, 2003, thereby the plaintiff (Madarsa) is declared as 4 CR.APL NOS.3261/2005 & 1049/2005 owner and possessor of Madarsa Jamiya Arbiya Aalimul Quarran Committee Topkhana Hingoli bearing No.3869-A, Chalta no.63, admeasuring 270 square meters situated at Hingoli. The City Survey Officer was directed to prepare separate property card of disputed property bearing no.3869-A, Chalta no.63 admeasuring 270 square meters situated at Hingoli. The defendants were restrained from interfering in the possession of plaintiff. According to the learned Counsel, in the light of these developments and decree of the suit, the very action contemplated by the officer/the complainant against issuance of certified copy of fake P.R. card is uncalled for. 7. Basically, the reference in the suit No.107/2001 accellerate based on forged certified copy which is subject of challenge. The question before the Court in criminal prosecution is who is the author of issuance of such fake certificate, thereby the Government and, the aggrieved person, the owner of the property - Mutawalli, Madarsa Jamia Arabiya, Tofkhana, are put to losses. The primary investigation and inquiry 5 CR.APL NOS.3261/2005 & 1049/2005 points needle to the accused/applicants as to their role and involvement. In domestic enquiry also he was found to be guilty. Taking these aspects into consideration, decree of the suit in favour of the Secretary, Madarsa Jamiya Arbiya Talimul Quarran Committee, Tofkhana, Hingoli, would not mean that the criminal prosecution is an eye wash or frustrates the rights of the parties. The criminal action is in tune with the basic inquiry caused and, thereafter, responsibility is fixed to its employee. Delay of 18 years has occasioned owing to decreeing a suit and squeezing rights of lawful owner of the property. There was no title documents with Madarsa to carve out a area from property of Masjid. Consequently, both the petitions lack merit and are dismissed. The observations are prima facie in nature. Liberty to approach the learned Judge after chargesheet. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE AGP/3261-05crapl