* 1 * W.P. 3621.2010 7.1.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3621 OF 2010 Shri. Atmaram Khasaba Dupte ... Petitioner V/S. Shri. Satyen Kumar N. Gehi & Ors. ... Respondents * * * * Mr. Kamlesh Mali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. U.V. Kezriwal, APP for the respondents. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 7 January, 2011. P.C. : 1. The petitioner herein has filed a private complaint being Criminal complaint No. 177/SW/2010 for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 466, 467, 469, 471, 426, 418, 423, 511, 506(II). 120B read with Section 114 Indian Penal Code against respondents no.1 to 7. It is alleged in the complaint that the respondents have committed breach of trust, forged documents and submitted the same to the Slum Rehabilitation * 2 * W.P. 3621.2010 7.1.2011 Authority for their personal gain. The petitioner, then prayed for referring of the matter to the police under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code. The trial Court on perusal of the complaint, going through the documents on record and after hearing the advocates was of the opinion that it is not a case calling for police investigation under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code and permitted the complainant to examine himself and his witness, if any, under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code before passing any further order therein. 2. Mr. Mali, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, the trial court ought to have directed inquiry by the police in view of the allegations made in the complaint about forgery and fabrication of bogus documents for the purpose of cheating the applicants so as to make personal gains. He draws attention of the court to the signature of the petitioner appearing at serial number 66 in the minutes book of the Society and his signature appearing on the present petition to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint. The signature of the petitioner in the petition and that seen in the minute book is different to the naked eye. It is submitted that if the investigation by the police is directed, the police will be able to obtain the opinion of the handwriting experts which would establish the commission of the offence. Since the signature is completely * 3 * W.P. 3621.2010 7.1.2011 different to the naked eye, there is no need to direct investigation by the police for this purpose alone. Mr. Mali, draws attention of the Court to paragraph-4 of the complaint wherein the complainant, states that he has come to know from the reliable sources that the respondents forged signatures of various members/occupants and conducted bogus special general body meeting. The complaint does not disclose either the sources of information or the names of persons whose signatures have been forged. In the circumstances the trial judge has rightly directed the complainant to produce himself and his witnesses for examination under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, the petition is dismissed. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]