1 APL 565.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 565 OF 2011 Anantrai Valji Modi. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. M. Janardhanan for the Applicant. Mr. S.S. Pednekar, APP for the State/Respondent No.1. Mr. M.S. Mohite for Respondents 2 and 3. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 14th SEPTEMBER 2011. P.C. :- Heard learned Counsel extensively. 2. The gift deed in the name of grand son Veer dated 13th November 2001 is claimed to be a colourable document executed by mis-representation, fraud, cheating, forgery and element of conspiracy, inviting Sections 405, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B r/w. 34 of I.P.C. in C.C.No.92/Misc/2006. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued process on 6.5.2006. After hearing the parties on 15th January 2007, he discharged the Accused. The Complainant carried the matter before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No. 216 of 2007, by order dated 10th January 2011, the Revision is dismissed. Hence, present proceedings by the donor Anantrai against son, daughter in law and other family members. 2 APL 565.11.sxw 3. Several features are argued by the learned Counsel for the Complainant. He says, the Applicant as father totally believed him and document of Will which he desired, was to be executed, but the son took disadvantage of the situation and got the gift deed of the property in the name of grand son Veer on 13th November 2001. 4. On analysis of the prima-facie material, both the Courts found that the Complainant was not kept in dark as he claims. The document is witnessed by known witnesses, executed and registered at Registrar’s office. The Income Tax Returns of the Complainant as proved by the Chartered Accountant (PW-2) speaks that even in the Annual Returns, the Complainant deleted the said property to be belonging to him. That apart, the transfer form of the society was signed by the Complainant. The contention that after four years surreptitiously, he saw name of his grand son on the notice board. Therefore, he generated a doubt and then made inquiry is unconceivable as the record is contrary. The society dues even after the gift deed are discharged even after the transfer in the name of Veer, dues are paid nakedly to the knowledge of the Complainant. The Complainant did not pay maintenance charge. He faced rejection of his claims slapped in civil litigation including Notice Motion No.2381 of 2005 in Suit No.2824 of 2006 by order dated 17th October 2006. 5. The Court found that there is no prima-facie material 3 APL 565.11.sxw placed by the Complainant that the gift deed was executed under duress or pressure. The delay of more than five years for filing the Complaint is not properly explained. 6. The learned Counsel submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in confirming the said finding, without application of mind as the learned Sessions Judge refers the discharge in terms of Section 203 of Cr.P.C. which relates to dismissal of the complaint. 7. An error of trivial nature appearing in the reasons of learned Sessions Judge will certainly not change tenor of the document and the order of the discharge dated 15th January 2007. The overall survey of the documents and the conduct of the Complainant informs that he has been subsequently influenced by other family members to wriggle out of the transaction with unclean hands and cooked stories. Consequently, Petition lacks merit. Dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)