1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION srk WRIT PETITION NO. 352 OF 2009 Pandharinath Tukaram Pathare & Ors. ..Petitioners. v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr. Niranjan Mundargi i/b Ms. Vishranti Navale for Petitioners. Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for Respondent no.1/State. Mr. Prasad Kulkarni i/b Mr. P.S. Dani for the Respondent no.2. .... CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 29TH JUNE, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 The Respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the present Petitioners for the offences punishable under section 182, 420, 465, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and it was registered as Regular Criminal Case No. 233 of 2004 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No.5, Pune. The learned Magistrate passed an order to frame charges for these offences. That order was challenged by the accused persons in Revision 2 Application No. 994 of 2007. The Revision Application was partly allowed and a charge punishable under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code came to be deleted but the remaining part of the order passed by the learned Magistrate was confirmed. Hence, this Petition. 3 It appears that father of the complainant/Respondent no.2 and the accused no.2 to 8 were the joint owners of the certain property. One Bhagubai Kedari, who was paternal aunt of the complainant, was also one of the owners of the property. The Petitioner no.1 claimed that the owners of the property, including Bhagubai Kedari, had executed a power of attorney in his favour for development of the property on 14.11.1994. The Respondent no.2 contended that Bhagubai Kedari was illiterate and she could not put her signature and she had died long before 14.11.1994 and therefore, she could not have signed the power of attorney in favour of the Petitioner no.1. It is alleged that as a result of conspiracy between the Petitioner No.1 on one hand and accused nos. 2 to 8 on the other, the power of attorney was forged and fabricated. 4 These are the questions of fact which need to be heard and decided at the time of the trial. The Revisional Court has already 3 rejected the Revision Application finding prima facie case against the Petitioners. In view of the facts of the case and finding by two courts below that there is a prima facie case to frame charge against the Petitioners, I do not find this to be a fit case to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. [ J.H. BHATIA, J. ]