1 cri-wp-1967-2009 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Writ Petition No.1967 OF 2009 Dilip Dattaram Agre Petitioner Vs. Sudhakar Tukaram Satam & ors. Respondents Mr.Abhay Ostwal for petitioner. Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. July 13, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Ostwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mrs.Shinde, the learned APP appears for the State of Maharashtra – respondent no.4. 2. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner who is the complainant in C.R.No.185 of 2008 seeks directions 2 cri-wp-1967-2009 to add respondent nos.2 and 3 as the additional accused in the said C.R. registered on 29/4/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. Respondent no.3 is the Assistant Director of Vikas Vibhag Chawl, BDD Chawl, Worli, Mumbai and respondent no.2 is the brother of respondent no.1 and the CR has been registered against respondent no.1. 3. Shri Sunil Deshmukh, Senior Police Inspector , Matunga Police Station has filed affidavit in reply and has stated that on completion of investigation in C.R.No.185 of 2008, a charge-sheet has been submitted on 25/7/2008 in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 51st Court at Kurla and the case has now been registered as C.C. No.961/PW/2008. It has been further stated that during the course of investigation there was no material found even prima facie against respondent nos.2 and 3 and in any case they were not the accused in the complaint which was lodged by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the handwriting expert’s report has not yet been received and, therefore, it cannot be certainly made out as to whether the documents were forged by accused no.1 or by any of respondent nos.2 and 3. 3 cri-wp-1967-2009 4. Now that the charge-sheet has been filed in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, it is well settled that the Court has powers under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to implead additional accused if the material placed before the Court during the trial makes out such a case and, therefore, at this stage we do not find any reason to show our indulgence in this petition and it would be appropriate that the issue is left to the trial Court. 5. Hence the petition is rejected. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)