1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1015 OF 2009. Attarkhan S/o Sardar Khan ... Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent. ... Mrs.U.P.Kale-Wayal, advocate for the applicant. Mr.K.S.Patil, A.P.P. for the State. Mr.D.S.Bharuka, advocate for the Respondent No.2 ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 08.09.2009. PER COURT 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR and the further proceedings of the Criminal case arising out of Crime No.I-462/07 for offences U/s 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C. registered at the Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad. 2 2. The petitioner is facing Criminal prosecution vide RCC No.371/2009 on the allegation that he submitted a false and fabricated document styled as General Power of Attorney which was purportedly executed by grand father of the complainant/Respondent No.2 and was notarised. The grand father of the Respondent No. 2 (complainant) died in 1968. The Respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioner impersonated some one before the Notary, namely, Mr.Bhagat on 4.2.2007 and got prepared false G.P.A. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned A.P.P. 4. At the outset, it is important to consider the nature of the document itself. The Respondent No.2 produced copy of the G.P.A. before the Police Officer. The copy produced by the Respondent No.2 before the Police Officer is at Exh.E. The copy of G.P.A. which is relied upon by the petitioner is at Exh.B. The learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that copy produced by the Respondent No.2 is 3 manipulated and false. It is argued that a portion regarding name of the executant is missing from that copy. The learned counsel would refer to the copy of G.P.A. at Exh.B. 5. The contention of learned counsel Smt.Kale-Wayal is that the G.P.A. was executed not by deceased Hiralal but by Mannalal S/o Hiralal. The very opening words of the G.P.A. are thus : "I, A.M.Hiralalseth, Age 74 years, Major." Attempt appears to be to show that the document is executed by Hiralalseth. There is absolutely no prima facie reason as to why said Hiralalseth or Mannalal S/o Hiralal should have executed such document in favour of the petitioner. Secondly, the copies of the two documents filed on record at Exh.L-55 and Exh.L-56 along with list (P-54) go to show that signature of Mannalal S/o Hiralal Agrawal is very much different from what appears on the document. Needless to say, the petition is based on disputed questions of facts. 4 6. The scope of jurisdiction available under article 227 is limited. The authenticity of the documents can not be determined without evidence regarding due execution or absence of execution. The copy of G.P.A. dated 3.10.2003 would show that it is the registered document executed by deceased Mannalal who was then aged about 82 years. His age is shown in the G.P.A. relied upon by the petitioner as 74 years. There is variance between the recitals of the document and the manner in which it has been so relied upon by the petitioner. Under the circumstances, it would not be proper to go into the disputed questions of facts in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction available under Article 227 of the Constitution. 7. For the reasons aforestated, the petition is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crapp101509