:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 34 OF 2007 Mr. Manohar Jagannath Epipalli ..Petitioner Vs. 1. Mr. Vrajlal Kapoorchand Shreemankar and anr. ..Respondents Ms. M.M. Malar for petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Bhatkar for respondent no.1. Mr. P.A. Pol, APP for State. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : October 16, 2007. Date : October 16, 2007. Date : October 16, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard the learned counsel for the applicant who is impleaded as an accused in the complaint filed under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and process was issued against him on 7/9/2005. In Criminal Revision Application No. 65 of 2006 the said order of issuance of process was challenged and the revision application has been dismissed on 9/8/2006. . It is submitted that the complaint has been filed on the basis of false documents and more :2: particularly the receipt for an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- alleged to have been issued by the accused in favour of the complainant. Whether the documents were forged or otherwise is a matter which could be decided during the trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in his elaborate order has dealt with the case of the accused and rightly held that the triable case is made out against him. The view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be termed as perverse or grossly erroneous. . I am, therefore, satisfied that there is no case made out to invoke the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The application is rejected. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)