WP.3600-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 3600 OF 2010 Hasansab s/o Babusab Patel @ Pendari ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent *** Mr. B. G. Vaidya, for the Petitioner. Mrs. V. R. Bhosle, APP for the Respondent-State. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : DECEMBER 23, 2010 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the criminal complaint, filed before the J.M.F.C. Solapur, for an offences punishable under S. 420, 467 read with S. 34 of the I. P. Code. It is submitted that this complaint has been filed as an after thought. It is submitted that civil suit filed by the Petitioner is pending in the Civil Court and this complaint has been filed only to harass the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has invited my attention to WP.3600-10 - 2 - the judgment of Apex Court, in the case of – V. Y. Jose & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. [(2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 78]. 2. I have perused the complaint. In the complaint, it is alleged that the petitioner had represented to the complainant that he is owner of the property situate at Kandivali and on the basis of the said representation, an agreement to purchase the said property was executed and towards the part payment of the sale consideration, an amount of Rs.30 laks was paid. According to the complainant, after he made inquiry, he came to know that the heirship certificate which was produced by the petitioner, is false and fabricated and therefore, complaint was filed against the petitioner. Taking into consideration the averments made in the complaint, it is not possible to quash the charge- sheet which has been filed against the petitioner. 3. The Apex Court in several judgments has dealt with this issue and held that while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under S. 482 Cr. P. C. and under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court should be slow in exercising its inherent power to quash the FIR. The averments made in the complaint prima-facie disclose the commission of offence punishable under S. 420, 467 read with S. 34 of the I. P. Code and it cannot be said that even if the allegations made in WP.3600-10 - 3 - the complaint are accepted at its face value, no offence has been made out. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is always open for the petitioner to apply for discharge under S. 245(2) Cr. P.C. at an appropriate stage. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to file an application under S. 245 (2) Cr. P. C. [ V. M. KANADE J.]