1 wp-458.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 458 OF 2011 Mr.Chandraprakash Bankelal Soni and another. ... Petitioners. V/s. State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents. Omprakash Pandey with Vindu P. Pandey i/b. Pandey & Co. for the petitioners. Ms.Asha Bhuta i/b. Bhuta Asso. for respondent Nos.10 to 14. D.P.Adsule, APP for the respondent-State. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 23rd February 2011. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This is yet another attempt to protract the proceeding before the DRT initiated by the respondent bank in exercise of powers under the DRT Securitisation Act. It is fairly conceded by the 2 wp-458.11 counsel for the petitioners that grievance regarding forgery and fabrication of documents is being raised only in the complaints dated 12th January, 2009 and 31st January, 2011. No suit has been filed by the petitioners for declaration that the said documents on which the respondent bank has proceeded to take action are not binding on the petitioners. 3. As aforesaid, this appears to be another attempt of the petitioners to protract the fruits of the order operating in favour of the respondent bank. The fact that the office of the Additional Commissioner of Police has forwarded the copy of the complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police along with letter dated 19th January, 2009 for necessary action cannot be the basis to assume that the allegations of the petitioners are genuine and truthful. The Deputy Commissioner of Police would be free to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. Besides this observation no other direction is required. Petition is disposed of accordingly. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)