1 Cri.W.P.58 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.58 OF 2011 Suresh S/o.Bajirao Madke and another PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS Mr.S.S.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr.V.D.Rakh, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. Mr.P.B.Shirsath, learned counsel for respondent no.2. Mr.R.R.Karpe, learned counsel for respondent no.3 to 7. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 29/03/2011 PER COURT : 1. By the present writ petition, the applicants have approached this Court to quash the FIR in CR No.154/2010, registered in Shevgaon Police Station, Tal.Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar on 08/11/2010 for the offence u/s. 420, 468, 467 of The IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants. The present CR No. 154/2010 came to be registered on the basis of complaint lodged by one Sheshrao Deorao Madke, wherein there are allegations that the land out of consolidation gat no.126, situated at Songaon Shiwar, which stood in the name of Shaikh Bashir Mohammad, who expired on 04/12/2009, was sold on 18/03/2010. It is alleged that the executor of the said transaction was no more on the date of execution of the sale deed. It is 2 Cri.W.P.58 of 2011 further alleged that after this fact came to the knowledge of the present applicants, they started inquiry. When the applicants came to know that some inquiry is going on about the sale transaction, they again executed one another sale deed on 08/04/2010. The main allegation is that at the time of first transaction the executor of the sale deed was no more and by personifying that the executor is alive, the document was claimed to be executed. It is urged across the bar that these applicants were not aware about the fact that from whom they are purchasing the property, is not the person who is owner of the property and under bonafide belief, they entered into the transaction. Whether there is intention or not, it is the matter of appreciation at the time of trial and can not be considered at this initial stage. The law is very clear about quashing of FIR. If from the contents of the FIR, the role played by the concerned is prima-facily established about the commission of offence, then in such circumstances, High Court is not suppose to exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction vested u/s. 482 of The Cr.P.C. Considering the averments in the complaint, it prima facie discloses the offence alleged. Considering this aspect, the writ petition sans any merit, hence rejected. 3. It is made clear that in case the applicants intend to settle the matter with the parties concerned, then the applicants are at liberty to move the appropriate forum to avail remedy u/s. 320(1)(2) of The Cr.P.C. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/MAR. 2011/cri.w.p.58-11