1 wp2204.10 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2204 OF 2010 Kishor Arjun Mansukhani. ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents Mr. A.V.Anturkar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh, advocate for petitioner. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP for State. Mr. B.K.Barve i/b. M/s. B.K.Barve & Co. for Respondent No.3. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED:- OCTOBER 25, 2010. P.C. 1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Petitioner, who has been named as Accused No.1 in the Complaint registered with Kalamboli Police Station in F.I.R.No.293 of 2010 at the instance of Respondent No.3 complainant qua him, has prayed for quashing and set aside the said FIR. 2. The principal argument is that even if going by the allegations in the FIR as it is, it would only indicate that the the complainant virtually accepts the 2 wp2204.10 position that it is the Petitioner(named accused No.1) who facilitated execution of lease deed in favour of the Respondent No.3 complainant in respect of the Plot No.5, in lieu of six acres of acquired land owned and possessed by the Respondent No.3 complainant, which was acquired by CIDCO. The Respondent No.3 in the statement given by him before the local police, which was reduced into writing as FIR has accepted the fact that on the basis of the Power of Attorney executed in favour of the Petitioner in the year 1993, the Petitioner took complainant to the Office of the CIDCO on 28th April, 2003, on which date lease deed was executed in favour of the complainant Respondent No.3. In the entire FIR, there is no allegation or even remote suggestion that Kishor Mansukhani was involved in subsequent transactions in relation to the plot in question or for that matter responsible for execution of documents in favour of the Accused Nos. 2 to 4. The fact that there has been irregularities in the execution of the said documents including the same were executed without the knowledge of the complainant, can be no basis to proceed against the Petitioner Mansukhani Accused No.1. 3. In view of this submission, the APP was called upon to show from the FIR or further statement of the complainant, if any, to indicate the involvement of the Petitioner Mansukhani in the transaction or execution of the documents in 3 wp2204.10 favour of the Accused Nos. 2 to 4. The APP in all fairness submits that there is no such allegation either in the statement given by the Respondent No.3 complainant, which was reduced into writing as FIR or his further statement. Realising this position, the APP in all fairness submits that as of now, the Petitioner cannot be proceeded as accused in the commission of the alleged offence of forgery, fraud and cheating with regard to the transactions in favour of Accused Nos. 2 to 4. However, in future, if material comes on record during the course of investigation before filing of the charge sheet or at the time of further investigation, the Investigating Officer may be at liberty to name the Petitioner as Accused in the commission of the alleged offence. We find this stand to be fair. 4. In the circumstances, it is clarified that the name of the Petitioner mentioned as Accused No.1 in the FIR in question stands effaced in view of the stand taken by the learned APP, however, with liberty to the Investigating Officer to name the Petitioner as accused, if and when incriminating material is found or comes on record during the investigation before filing of the charge sheet or in case of further investigation, as the case may be. With this observation, the Petition filed by the Petitioner-Accused No.1 stands disposed of. 4 wp2204.10 5. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion whatsoever with regard to the efficacy of material already collected by the Investigating Officer thus far or to be collected hereafter. It is also clarified that this order will not come in the way of the Investigating Officer to pursue the matter against the Petitioner in connection with the alleged offence and if incriminating material comes on record, he would be free to name the Petitioner as accused at the appropriate stage, including of filing of chargesheet against the Petitioner, if so required. Petition disposed of on the above terms. 6. We hope and trust that the Petitioner would cooperate with the investigation of the offence in question whenever called upon to do so irrespective of the fact that this Petition has succeeded. Ordered accordingly. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)