1 CA5115/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5115 OF 2011 1. Anand s/o Mohanlal Gandhi 2. Mahendra s/o Ajayraj Kothari 3. Saurabh s/o Mahendra Kothari 4. Vinod s/o Ramnarayan Agrawal 5. Pramod s/o Ramnarayan Agrawal 6. Kailas s/o Ramnarayan Agrawal Applicants V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon 3. Sunita w/o Sanjay Ippar Respondents Shri P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel, with Shri K.C. Sant, Advocate for the applicants Shri B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondent No. 1 & 2 / State Shri H.F. Pawar, Advocate for respondent No. 3 CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 12th December, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Advocates of both sides including learned Advocate for respondent No. 3. 2. The applicants apprehend arrest in connection with CR No. 314 of 2011, registered with Jilha Peth Police Station, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of 2 CA5115/2011 the Indian Penal Code. 3. Smt. Indubai Dagadu Wanjari had executed a power of attorney in favour of Ulhas Devram Sable, and on the basis of said power of attorney, said Ulhas Sable had executed a sale-deed dated 8th June, 2010, in favour of the present applicants. It is not in dispute that on the day when said sale deed was executed, said Indubai was holder of the said land, which was sold as per the said sale-deed. Thereafter, according to the applicants, a document, in the nature of consent- document, came to be executed on 30th June, 2010 in favour of the applicants by as many as seven persons including one Mrs. Sunita. This Mrs. Sunita filed a Criminal Case in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon bearing Criminal M.A. No. 808 of 2011, alleging therein that the present applicants have committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 81, 82 of the Registration Act. An order 3 CA5115/2011 under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon, attending to the said matter. Thereafter, as per the procedure, F.I.R. came to be registered and that is how the applicants apprehend arrest. 4. The Notary Public before whom the said document dated 30th June, 2010, was executed, has rendered a statement. She has stated that said Mrs. Sunita tendered her signature on the said document. The register maintained by Notary equally shows signature of said Mrs. Sunita. A perusal of her two signatures would indicate that said two signatures are different. No doubt, this is a fact which requires investigation. 5. After having perused the aforesaid material, I am inclined to observe that in fact the document dated 30th June, 2010, was a document executed without any 4 CA5115/2011 need and one really does not know why this document came to be executed. Sale-deed dated 8th June, 2010 had itself conferred title on the present applicants. By execution of this document dated 30th June, 2010, to my mind, there is no wrongful gain to the present applicants or wrongful loss to the present complainant, as said complainant had no authority to object the sale-deed dated 30th June, 2010. This aspect has to be considered in favour of the applicants keeping in view the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Vimla v. The Delhi Administration, reported in AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1572. 6. According to learned Advocate Mr. H.F. Pawar for respondent No. 3 Mrs. Sunita Ipper, the document which came to be filed in the office of Prant did not bear signature of Mrs. Sunita. One does not know why the document without signature of Mrs. Sunita came to be filed and that does not mean that the document on which the applicants are relying does notbear the 5 CA5115/2011 signature of Mrs. Sunita. So also, one does not know under what circumstances a copy of said document was filed in the Prant Office by the present applicants. Surely, a reasonable man would not take risk of relying upon a document which is forged and say that he is claiming title on the strength of the said document. 7. Looking to the facts of the case, I am inclined to hold that the custodial interrogation of the present applicants is not necessary. They can be put to terms as regards their attendance, so that the investigating officer would obtain their specimen handwriting and signatures, so that the said material can be sent to the handwriting expert. In view of above, following order is passed to dispose of the application : O R D E R A. In the event of arrest of any of the applicant in CR No. 314 of 2011 registered 6 CA5115/2011 with Jilha Peth Police Station, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon, said applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with one surety in the like amount. Said applicant shall furnish P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand). B. All the applicants shall report to the concerned Investigating Officer firstly on 19th December, 2011 and thereafter as and when called for. All the applicants will have to co-operate with the concerned Police Officer as regards the submission of necessary documents and also tendering specimen handwriting. ( R.Y. GANOO, J. ) SRM/12/12/11