1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3087 OF 2009 Sulekha Yogesh Kapila & Ors. : Applicants (Orig.Accused nos.1 to 3) V/s. Jasbirkaur B. Uppal & Anr. : Respondents ... Mr.Neville D. Deboo for the applicants. Ms A.T. Jhaveri, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : AUGUST 03, 2009. P.C.: 1. The applicants have challenged the order dated 6.1.2009 issuing process against them under sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The process has been issued at the instance of the respondent no.1 on a complaint dated 12.9.2008 filed in the Court of J.M.F.C. at Vashi. According to the complainant, an apartment No.F-3/7 was purchased by one Surendra Kumar Sharma and sold to the accused no.1 by execution of necessary documents. This flat is said to have been purchased by the complainant from the accused no.1 for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. Rs.6,00,000/- is said to have been paid 2 by cheque no.019661 and Rs.50,000/- each was paid by cheque nos. 019662 and 019663 to the accused no.1. According to the complainant, the entire consideration has been paid. According to the complainant, the accused did not execute the sale deed. The complainant has thus resorted to a suit. The complaint is filed in respect of documents which are said to have been fabricated in respect of the flat in question whereby the accused-applicants in collusion with each other are said to have got the flat transferred in the name of the accused no.2. The complainant has alleged that the accused no.2 and her husband have prepared false receipts for the payment of Rs.6,00,000/-. The complainant has also alleged that a false leave and licence agreement purporting to be leave and licence in favour of the complainant showing leave and licence agreement for 11 months has been fabricated. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the issue of process is not in accordance with law since, in fact, the property has been delivered to the applicant no.2 by the applicant no.1 with the consent of the complainant and, as such, no offence can be said to have been made out. It is, however, pertinent to note that the contentions are based on disputed facts. It is not pointed out how the sections invoked are not attracted to the present case. Thus, without touching upon the merits of the case of the parties, I am of view that it is not an appropriate case for quashing the process. Needless to say that the applicants shall be entitled to avail of such remedies as may be available 3 to them at any subsequent stage, including an application for discharge. 2. In this view of the matter, the Criminal Application is dismissed. S.A. BOBDE, J.