IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2354 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2354 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2354 OF 2007 Mrs. Kalavati B. Shimpi & ors.... Petitioner versus M/s. Venus Enterprises & ors...... Respondent. Mr. Kiran J.Kandpile & Mr. Kunal H.Shitre for the petitioner. Mrs. M.H.Mhatre APP for State. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 27TH MARCH, 2008 DATED; 27TH MARCH, 2008 DATED; 27TH MARCH, 2008 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. The present petitioners are original accused in a complaint filed by the respondent. After primafacie consideration, the trial court has issued process against the present petitioners for offence punishable under section 420 read with 34 of IPC. Aggrieved by the order of issue process, a revision application was filed before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions judge has, on appreciation of facts, recorded a primafacie finding that the present petitioners had induced the complainant to part with a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- so also a flat valued at Rs. 4,92,350/-. Relying on the representation made by the petitioner that they are exclusive owner of the property in question. It is brought on record that the daughter of deceased Bhanudas is also having a share in the said property. The Sessions court has primafacie rightly reached the conclusion that on account of false representation made by the present petitioners, the complaint was made to part with the amount. 2. Perused the impugned order, so also the evidence of Chayya recorded under section 202 of Cr.P.C. No interference with the impugned order is called for. Petition is thus summarily dismissed. ....