1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1873/2008 with CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3504/2008. Gopal Anant Adawadkar - APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharshtra and Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.PR Katneshwarkar, Advocate for Applicant; Mrs.BR Khekale, APP for State. Mr.A.B.Kharosekar, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 14th September, 2009. PER COURT : 1) Heard learned Counsel for the parties extensively. 2) Mr.Katneshwarkar took me to the statements of witnesses, few of whom are of the accused, and tried to impress that the statement of the accused will not be of any material to be coined against the other accused, present applicant – Gopal in particular. 2 3) By Criminal Application No.3504/2008, the applicant – Shamsundar Anant Adawadkar, the complainant, has requested to modify the order dated 1st August, 2008 recorded in Criminal Application No.1873/2008. 4) Since the main matter, i.e. Criminal Application No.1873/2008 is finally heard and decided, Criminal Application No.3504/2008 will not survive, it is accordingly disposed of. 5) The lengthy submissions, advanced by Mr.Katneshwarkar, will reveal two aspects in the matter, viz., i) Where the uncontroverted allegations in the F.I.R. or the complaint and the evidence in support of the same do not disclose commission of an offence and make out no case against the accused; and ii) Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint are absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused ? This was in the context of the Judgment in the matter of State of 3 Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 AIR SC 604. 6) The Counsel also took me to the Judgment in the matter of M/s Pepsi Foods Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate Court, reported in 1998 (5) Bom.C.R. SC 426, to indicate that the accused at any stage of the trial, if he considers that the charge to be groundless, can move the Court in terms of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or under Article 227 of the Constitution. 7) It is not in controversy that the complainant -Shamsundar was owner of Plot Nos.15 and 16, which are purportedly sold by document No.2470 and 2471. Shamsunder suspected his brother Gopal to be instrumental to sign as author/vendor of the document. Several persons were nabbed in the matter in which statement of Somnath Trimbak Shukl, one of the scribes or stamp vendor Deelip, other stamp vendor, were recorded. The purchasers’ statements were also recorded. The purchasers are arrayed as accused. Subsequently, Hand-writing expert’s report is 4 made available, which was not available initially before the learned Judge. Since the matter is of the year 1995, riped, at this stage, again in- depth inquiry, as is sought, is not warranted. 8) I do not find any merit in the contention of accused - Gopal that there is nothing against him. The prima facie evidence indeed implicate him, added to it is the Hand- writing expert’s report, which is to be analyzed by the learned Judge independently by examination of the Expert. It has been seen accused, an educated person, has a changing pattern of his writings and signatures. 9) Consequently, Criminal Application No. 1873/2008 is dismissed. Rule directed dated 1.8.2008 discharged. The observations are prima facie in nature. Needless to add, the remedies for discharge for the accused/applicant Gopal are unbridled. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/cran1873.08