1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 3150 OF 2008 Abdul Gani S/o Khairulla Chaudhari Versus State of Maharashtra and others. *** Mr. K. S. Bhore, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs. B. R. Khekale, A.P.P. for the Respondent. Mr. V. D. Gunale, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mrs. Anjali B. Dube, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 6. *** 1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned A.P.P. The complainant took recourse to section 190-A of Criminal Procedure Code, for an offence punishable under section 379, 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. He alleged that forged documents were prepared giving rise to mutation entry NO.325 concerned Survey No.58 in the name of the educational institution and according to the petitioner herein, there was theft of the revenue record from the office of Tahsildar which has been generated and effected at the instance of the accused respondent educational institution. 2. Orders under section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code were passed by the learned J.M.F.C. calling report from concerned police. Investigation was caused and 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. the report Exhibit-8 was tendered before the learned J.M.F.C. Having gone through the report, he did not find any material to issue process. Consequently, quashed and proceedings by virtue of section 203 of Criminal Procedure Code. The order was challenged before the learned Sessions Court in Criminal Revision No.30 of 2008 and learned Sessions Court did not agree to the statements of the present petitioner and consequently confirmed the directions of dismissal of complainant as well as present petitioner. 3. The aspects referred by the petitioner/ complainant are stealing of the original record from the custody of Tahsildar, however, there is nothing that the Tahsildar or the revenue authorities are aggrieved or they have any incident of stealing of record or tampering the same. Then comes the mutation entry or its forgery. Same is subject matter of civil litigation. The parties are bound to face consequences. 4. The allegations are mutation entries effected way back in 1963 are based on forged document. The learned Judge has also considered applicability of bar of limitation in the light of section 468 of Criminal 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Procedure Code. 5. Taking survey of these details, I do not find any illegality on the part of the learned J.M.F.C. or learned Revisional Court in not entertaining the same. Criminal application rejected. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:05/08/2009. ans/3150