* 1 * W.P. 3199.2009 21.2.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3199 OF 2009 Smt. Kamal Laxman Vichare .... Petitioner V/S. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents * * * * * * Mr. V.M. Puranik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for the State-respondent no.1. None for respondent no.2. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 21 February, 2011. P.C. : 1. Mr. Puranik, informs that respondent no.2-original accused no.1 has expired. He seeks liberty to amend the petition to delete the name of respondent no.2. The liberty is granted. Amendments to be carried out during the couse of the day. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 21st March, 2009 passed by the Sessions * 2 * W.P. 3199.2009 21.2.2011 Court in Criminal Revision Application arising out of the order of the trial Court dismissing the complaint of the petitioner under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code. 3. The copy of the complaint annexed to the petition states as follows : . The petitioner alongwith respondents no.3 and 4 was the partner in a firm by name M/s. Prabhavi Poultry Farm engaged in the business of poultry products. The petitioner has filed Special Civil Suit No. 176 of 1988 in the Court of Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane against respondent no.2 for dissolution of the partnership firm. In those proceedings at the instance of petitioner, records from the office of Income Tax, Kalyan had been called. On 5th January, 1993, the officer from the Income-Tax office produced the documents in the Court. The documents consisted of certified copy of Income Tax returns filed on behalf of the partnership firm. The documents show that until the assessment year 1987-88, the petitioner was shown as one of the partners the firm. The petitioner alleges that she is deliberately not shown as partner in the subsequent years. She alleges that accused nos.1 and 2 dishonestly with a common intention “ and conspiracy with each other, fraudulently and illegally committed * 3 * W.P. 3199.2009 21.2.2011 forgery and fabricated bogus documents purporting to be accounts of the partnership firm M/s. Prabhavi Poultry Farm, without depicting the name of the complainant as a partner.” Then, respondents no.2 and 3 used those documents to deny her legitimate rights in the firm. Further, at paragraph-7 of the complaint the petitioner alleges that the accused have fraudulently and dishonestly used these documents as genuine which they know to be forged documents. The complainant submits that by practising forgery, the accused have misappropriated the share of complainant in the property of the partnership firm. Perusal of the complaint, shows that it contains neither the particulars of the documents forged nor the facts relating to forgery, 4. The trial court had after recording the statement in verification of the petitioner, directed inquiry under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code. The concerned police authority submitted its report dated 4th June, 2005. The Court, however, directed further investigation by its order dated 8th June, 2005 and the final report came to be submitted on 5th July, 2005. After perusal of the report and hearing the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, the trial Court was convinced that the dispute in the complaint is purely of personal nature. It took note that there are various proceedings * 4 * W.P. 3199.2009 21.2.2011 pending between the parties and the issue as regards being a partner in the firm has already been decided by the Civil Court. The Civil Court has held that the petitioner retired from the firm as a partner with effect from 19th September, 1980. It also held that the tax- consultant Shri. A.G. Desai had fraudulently obtained signatures of respondent no.2 on the accounts of the firm for the years 1980-81 to 1985-86. Mr. Puranik, submits that these findings of the civil Court are under challenge in the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Therefore, they cannot be taken as a final finding in the matter. Even if that is so, the complaint as filed cannot be said to disclose the offence alleged against respondents no.2 and 3 since the same lacks particulars of the offence alleged. The trial court is also right in its finding that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature. The Sessions Court in its revisional jurisdiction accepted the findings of the trial court and dismissed the revision application. I find no infirmity whatsoever in the orders of the courts below. Hence, the petition is dismissed. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]