IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.448 OF 2007 Manik Maruti Gaikwad & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Shamrao Bapu Gurav & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.R.G.Ketkar for the petitioners. Mr.N.S.Patil for the respondent No.1. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P for the respondent No.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 10th September 2008. : 10th September 2008. : 10th September 2008. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent filed a private complaint alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 109, 114, 120, 193, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 420, 423, 487, 471, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On 15th April 1998 process was issued by the learned Magistrate under sections 420, 423, 468, 109, 471, 193, 196, 197, 198, 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code. A revision application was filed by the petitioners for challenging the order issuing process. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision application. : 2 : 2. The allegations made by the 1st respondent complainant are that the petitioners acting in conspiracy have fabricated a Sale Deed dated 12th August 1993 purportedly executed by the 1st respondent and have got the same registered. The allegation is that even a power of attorney allegedly executed by the 1st respondent in favour of his brother Anna Bapu Gurav is fabricated. 3. The challenge to the order issuing process by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is on the ground that the 1st respondent has filed substantive civil suits and in one of the suits, the challenge is to the said Sale Deed. He pointed out the prayers made by the 1st respondent in Special Civil Suit No.439 of 1996 wherein a declaration is claimed as regards the same document. He placed reliance on decision of this Court in the case of Prabhakhar Vithal Nalwade Vs. Prabhu Khemchand Karamchandani & Ors. (1998 (3) Maharashtra Law Journal 845) and submitted that in view of the pendency of the civil suits, there was no justification in continuing the criminal proceedings. 4. I have considered the submissions. The allegations made by the 1st respondent in the criminal : 3 : complaint are of fabrication and forgery. Considering these allegations, process has been issued by the learned Magistrate. By filing civil suit, a declaration is sought by the 1st respondent as regards the same document in respect of which allegations have been made in the complaint. Perusal of the decision of this Court in the case of Prabhakar (supra) shows that in the case before the learned single Judge the dispute was essentially a civil dispute. In the present case there are allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents. Hence, no interference is called for in the order issuing process. Petition is rejected. However, it is made clear that all contentions of the petitioners on merits are expressly kept open. (A.S.Oka, J)