IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.737 OF 2009 Arvind Amrutlal Harsora ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ­­­ Shri J.J. Kini i/b. Shri Suresh Dubey for Applicant Shri S.S. Pednekar, APP for State Shri V.D. Upadhyay for Complainant. ­­­­ CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 16TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant, the learned APP for the State and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainant. 2. This is an application for anticipatory bail. 3. The complaint has been lodged against the present Applicant for the offence punishable under sections 406, 417, 420, 465, 467, 468 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The allegation against the present Applicant is that he had forged and fabricated the documents and on the basis of the forged and fabricated documents had entered into an agreement with the Complainant and had cheated the Complainant. The Sessions Court, on going through the documents, which were tendered by the Additional Prosecutor came to the conclusion that the detailed investigation in respect of the forged and fabricated documents is necessary. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that the Applicant had filed a complaint against the present Complainant. He submitted that the room was initially given to one Mr. Gaikwad and since Gaikwad has not taken the possession, he had given this room to the Complainant on a temporary basis. He submitted that the cheque was used by the Complainant, who has fraudulently filled his name for an amount of Rs.20 lacs and presented the cheque to his banker for realisation. He, therefore, submitted that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. 6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainant, on the other hand, submitted that the Applicant has cheated several persons and had constructed a building unauthorisedly on the property belonging to CIDCO and that a demolition notice has been issued by the CIDCO under section 155 of the MRTP Act. 7. In my view, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Though civil cases have been filed by both the parties against each other and the allegations which are made against the present Applicant are of serious nature and, therefore, investigation ought to have been made in respect of the said complaint. The Learned Magistrate has directed the investigating officer to register the offence under section 156(III) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the Applicant and make investigation and the police are making investigation. 8. Under these circumstances, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. 9. Application is disposed of. V.M. KANADE J.