1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No.1 of 2008 (Vivek s/o Late Ramdas B. Mokadam v. State of Maharashtra) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Petitioner-in-person. Shri R.P. Joshi, Advocate for Sukumar Nashine. Shri A.S. Sonare, APP for Respondent. CORAM : A.H. Joshi, J. DATE : 30th June, 2008 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Trial Court on application Exhibit 38. The application Exhibit 38 is at pages 62 to 79. Furtherance to FIR dated 24-5-2001, chargesheet-final report was filed against the petitioner. 2. The substance of the report lodged to police is that taking disadvantage of the fact that the property bearing plot no.294 was still in the name of the father, the accused by fabricating signatures of mother and two sisters got the property mutated in his name. 3. The learned Trial Judge has framed the charge. By application Exhibit 38 the applicant had prayed for discharge. The application has been rejected by order dated 14-11-2007, which order is challenged in this petition. 2 4. Heard petitioner Shri Vivek Ramdas Mokadam in person. The gist of the submissions of the petitioner is stated as follows : (i) Complainant Sukumar K. Nashine has no locus standi, as he is a perfect stranger and the documents on the basis of which he is claiming ownership do not confer any right, title or interest in him. (ii) The complaint filed against the petitioner is false and truthfulness, correctness and legality of rights of the present petitioner/accused are sub judice and, therefore, a criminal complaint ought not to be entertained nor charge should have been framed. 5. After considering the submissions and material on record, it is seen that present is a case where the accused is claiming and is setting up defence that the complaint, final report and framing of charge based thereon is false, as a ground for quashing of charge. 6. It is well settled that the accused may make a prayer for quashing of the charge inter alia in the event either the contents of the complaint or the contents of the charge fail to spell out and even fail to barely describe the commission of offence. 7. Petitioner may claim innocence, but it will have to be finally decided after conclusion of trial. It is not the case of petitioner that there is no material on record against him. Admittedly the execution of relinquishment deed is subject-matter of the complaint, and there is nothing 3 shown from record that charge could not be framed. 8. Order rejecting application Exhibit 38 is based on sound reasons and on what prima facie emerges from the record no interference is called for. 9. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE Lanjewar