1 wp2489.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2489 of 2010 Mr. Omprakash Jhunjhunwala ....Petitioner v/s. Prabhat Jhunjhunwala & ors. ....Respondents Mr. F.F. Fedrics for the petitioner. Mr. C.K. Pendse for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. D.R. More-APP for the State. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 29th June, 2011 PC: The petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Revisional Court in Revision Application No. 441/2009 thereby dismissing the criminal revision application filed by the present petitioner. 2. The brief history which gave rise to the dispute which is between two brothers is the complaint filed under Section 409,467,468,471 and 120-B of the IPC. The learned Magistrate had directed an enquiry under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. On the police report being filed, the complaint came to be dismissed against which the revision was filed. The learned revisional Court allowed the revision and directed the learned Magistrate to issue process. Being aggrieved thereby writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court quashed and set aside the order passed by learned Revisional Court and remanded the matter to the revisional Court for deciding it afresh in accordance with the directions issued therein. On remand the learned Revisional Court has dismissed the revision application upholding the 2 wp2489.10.sxw initial order passed by the learned Magistrate of dismissal of the complaint. 3. Heard Shri Fedrics, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pendse, the learned Counsel for the respondent. 4. The learned Revisional Court has given elaborate reasons for dismissing the revision. The learned Revisional Court has found that the accused no.1 being one of the Directors of the company had signed and submitted the forms and documents to the Registrar of the companies which were alleged to be forged through Secretary of the companies. It has been found that said documents were duly verified by the Company Secretary. It has been further found by the learned Revisional Court that the perusal of the order passed by the Company Law Board on 30th January, 2008 would reveal that the returns filed by the accused no.1 with the Registrar of the companies were not disputed by the present petitioners. The learned Revisional Court has, therefore, found that when the petitioner himself has not disputed the alleged documents, he cannot allege the said documents to be forged. 5. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the view taken by the learned Revisional Court is either perverse or impossible to warrant interference. 6. Rejected. (B.R. GAVAI, J)