1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1435 OF 2009 Vishnu Sahadu Kalamkar ...Petitioner (Orig.Complainant) vs. Ramchandra Shankarrao Mate & Ors. ...Respondents (Respondents no.1 & 2 - Orig.accused) Mr.Rahul Kadam i/b. Mr.Deepak Girme for the Petitioner. Mr.S.V. Kotwal i/b. Mr.M.S. Mohite for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mrs.P.P. Bhosale, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : MARCH 26, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Counsel for the respondents. 2 The petitioner takes exception to the order passed by the Sessions Court, Pune, in Criminal Revision Application No.588/2008 which was decided 2 on 8th April, 2009. 3 The petitioner had filed private complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with 34 of the IPC. Initially, matter was referred to police under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. The police after investigation submitted a report and informed the court that the dispute between the parties essentially was of a civil nature. The learned Magistrate, however, was pleased to issue process thereafter. The said order was challenged by the respondents herein by filing a revision application in the court of Sessions, Pune. The Sessions court after perusing the complaint and after hearing both the sides was pleased to allow the criminal revision application and the process was quashed and set aside. 4 Brief facts are that the petitioner herein was one of the co-owners of the property situated in District Pune. An Agreement of Sale was executed 3 between the petitioner and the respondents herein in 1994 and an amount of Rs.18,36,000/- was paid. Thereafter, an Agreement of Sale in respect of the said land was executed. It was agreed that the balance of Rs.6,12,000/- would be paid on or before 15th November, 1994. Pursuant to Power of Attorney given by the petitioner, the respondents herein submitted a layout and some of the plots were sold to third parties. The petitioner herein executed the Sale Deed in favour of third parties. A total amount of Rs.28 lakhs approximately was paid to the petitioner and the other co-owners. A complaint was filed by the petitioner herein in 2007 in which it was alleged that the respondents had made a representation to the petitioner and other co-owners that they wanted to make an application under the Urban Land Ceiling Act to the Government and for that purpose, they wanted his signature on the document. It was alleged in the complaint that relying on the said representation, the petitioner signed the said document which later on transpired 4 to be a Power of Attorney on the basis of which authority was given to the respondents to sell land. The Sessions Court did not accept the said contention of the petitioner herein and noted that the complaint was filed almost after 14 to 15 years after the document was executed and after the other co-owners had the acknowledged receipt of the entire consideration of Rs.28,80,000/- and belatedly the said complaint was filed since the price of the land was increased in the meantime. 5 I have perused the order passed by the revision court. In my view, no case is made out by the petitioner for interfering with the order passed by the Sessions court by exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6 Writ petition, accordingly, is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.)