1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION APPLICATION NO. 4127 OF 2009 Krushna Madhav Wankhede & Ors. ... Applicants. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents. Ms. Kruttika Pokale for the Applicants. Mr. D.R. More, APP for the State. Mr. P.R. Arjunwadkar for Respondent No.2. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 04th JANUARY 2010. P.C. :- The present application is directed against the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Ulhasnagar issuing process and summoning the Petitioners/Applicants to answer the charge. 2. The Second Respondent – Complainant filed a complaint alleging the offence punishable under Section 420, 447, 448, 452, 467, 468, 511, 120(B) r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The complainant’s case is that he is residing at village Katrap, Kulgaon, Badalapur and there is an ancestral property belonging to him. The father of the complainant died in the year 2006. He was addicted to alcohol. One of the Petitioners was a very close friend of the complainant’s father. It is his 2 case that a Power of Attorney executed by the father came to an end after his death. On the basis of the same, certain entries have been made fraudulently in the record of rights as has been highlighted in the complaint. The acts alleged constitute an offence of forgery and cheating which are punishable under the Penal Laws. The allegations in the complaint to the aforementioned effect are in paragraphs 3 to 6. 4. The only contention advanced before me is that the complainant suppressed from the Court below the fact that a Civil Suit is filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division. An Application for interim injunction was made and which came to be dismissed. It is contended that on the basis of the averments and allegations in the plaint, the present complaint has been filed and by suppressing from the Court below the fact of filing of the Civil Suit, an order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. has been obtained. By this act of the complainant he is dis-entitled from proceeding with the criminal complaint. Institution of criminal proceedings during the pendency of the civil suit is an abuse of the process of the Court. 5. With the assistance of the Counsel appearing for the Applicant and the Complainant, I have perused the application and more particularly, the complaint and annexures thereto. From the Petition itself it is apparent that the Suit was filed by the complainant on 18th February 2009 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior division for declaration and injunction. Therein an 3 application was made for interim injunction which came to be rejected. An appeal is filed against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division and it is pending. 6. The allegations in the complaint are that despite the alleged power of attorney becoming inoperative and unenforceable after the death of the deceased father of the complainant, on the basis thereof, the transactions referred to in the complaint have been entered into. The complainant has alleged that the accused are very well aware of the death of the deceased and that the power of attorney therefore, could not have been acted upon. Yet, the subject transactions have been undertaken by projecting that they are entered into during the life time of the deceased. The fact of death is suppressed from the parties. 7. From a reading of the complaint itself, it is apparent that the same alleges commission of offences punishable under the I.P.C. That a Civil Suit has been filed and is pending cannot in the peculiar facts of this case be said to be something which could have not persuaded the learned Judge to issue a process. When the allegations in the complaint point out to commission of offences punishable under the I.P.C. and that mere pendency of the Civil Suit in this case could not have been the determinative factor, then, this is not a fit case for interference in my jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. That jurisdiction is to be exercised in exceptional circumstances and after satisfying that it is necessary to 4 exercise the inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Criminal Court. That being the determinative factor and I am satisfied that in this case the complaint allegations do not suggest that there is an abuse of the process of the Court, then, there is no alternative but to dismiss this application. It is accordingly dismissed. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)