1 Cri.W.P.No.2240/09 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2240 OF 2009 Nizamuddin H. Ahemd ...Petitioner. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr.Vivek Kantawala a/w Ms Sneha Nanandkar i/by M/s. Vivek Kantawala and Co. advs. for the Petitioner. Ms M.H.Mhatre, APP for the Respondent No.1. Shri A. Majeed Memon, adv. For the R.No.2. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : AUGUST 17, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner, who is partner of Tainwalla Builders and Developers, accused no.5 in the criminal case no.61/Misc. Of 2009, has filed this petition to quash the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 22nd Court, Andheri for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. 2 Respondent no.2 before this Court is the original complainant. As per the complainant, who is the owner of certain property involved in the present case, accused no.1 Shailesh Karai Bing allegedly prepared forged documents purporting to be a resolution of the complainant company and the power of attorney in his favour signed by 2 Cri.W.P.No.2240/09 D.S.Gardi, Managing Director of the complainant/company. On the basis of that power of attorney, accused no.1 allegedly executed power of attorney in favour of the accused no.2 Akbar Ali. It is alleged that on 29.4.2006 an agreement for sale was executed by the accused no.1 on behalf of the complainant in favour of the accused no.3 Vijay Kamble in respect of the plots of land admeasuring 16,846.2 sq.mtrs., at Oshiwara. Accused no.2 Akbar Ali got conveyance deed from the accused no.1 on 11.9.2002. The said Akbar Ali executed deed of conveyance in favour of the accused no.5 Tainwalla Builders in respect of 7,075 sq.mtrs. Land. All this was done on the basis of the forged resolution allegedly passed by the complainant/company. Several other transactions were entered into by said Akbar Ali and Shailesh. The complainant contended that the accused no.1 was never authorised on behalf of the company to enter into any transaction nor any power of attorney was executed in his favour. It is contended that as a result of conspiracy, certain forged documents were prepared and attempt was made to grab and transfer the property of the complainant to different persons on the basis of forged documents. Several circumstances were mentioned in the complaint to show as to how the said resolution and the alleged power of attorney were forged documents. Taking into 3 Cri.W.P.No.2240/09 consideration all the circumstances mentioned in the complaint, the learned Magistrate directed Oshiwara Police station to hold an enquiry under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. 3 The only contention of the present petitioner is that he or accused no.5 has nothing to do with the conspiracy or forgery of documents He obtained the conveyance deed dated 3.6.2006 from the accused no.2 Akbar Ali, the purchaser of first transaction and in whose favour there was conveyance deed executed by the accused no.1 and the said Akbar Ali in turn executed that conveyance deed in favour of accused no.5 Tainwalla Builders and Developers. It is contended that the civil suit is already filed for declaration and that suit is pending and, therefore, there is no justification to hold investigation. 4 The learned Magistrate did not issue process to the accused. Even though the civil suit is filed on the basis of same facts but if there was some conspiracy and forged documents were created to grab the property of the complainant, it amounts to serious criminal case and, therefore, investigation is necessary to find out truth. If the investigation reveals commission of the crime naturally culprits will have to face the trial for the criminal case. It is settled position of law that when by the same Act, crime has been committed and it also gives rise to the civil 4 Cri.W.P.No.2240/09 remedy, merely because civil suit is filed, there is no justification to stay investigation into the criminal case. On the basis of contentions of the present petitioner, at this stage it is impossible to come to conclusion that the petitioner had no concern with the alleged forgery. That needs to be investigated and naturally that would give an opportunity to the petitioner also to clear himself. When the investigation is directed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., it does not mean that the Court intends to take action against each of the accused. It only means that the Court wants the matter to be investigated and after investigation the Court would take action only against those accused persons, who are found to have committed the offence, if any. In view of these circumstances, I find no justification to quash the impugned order and the investigation. 5 Therefore, the petition stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)