1 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2649 OF 2008 Ramnik Khemji Mota and Ors. ... Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2650 OF 2008 Amit Ramnik Mota ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. A.A. Kukmbhakoni i/by Mr. V.V. Purwant, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.M. Oak i/by Mr. Sagar Joshi for respondent no. 2. Mr.Rajesh More, A.P.P. for State in Cri.W.P. No.2649/08. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, , A.P.P. for State in Cri.W.P. No.2650/08. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 P.C. Issuance of process for respondent No. 2 in Enquiry No. 81 of 2007. and 80 of 2007 by the learned J.M.F.C. at Baramati dated 6.10.2007 was questioned in C.R.A. No. 91 and 92 of 2007 before the 2 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmati. The learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the finding of issuance of process and rejected the revision applications. Hence, writ petitions. The complainant came with a case that she has been cheated and deceived while getting her immovable property sold. She has primarily indicated that in the office of Sub Registrar, the valuation of the land which was around Rs. 14 to 19 lacs. However, the sale deed was executed only for the amount of Rs. 2 lacs. She submits that she was assured if she executes the sale deed, she would be getting additional amount of Rs.35 to 40 lacs and employment will be showered on her two sons. She was even assured that irrigation facility will be provided to her land by bringing her land under the canal water. Based on such representations, she being deceived, filed prosecution as referred above, challenging the execution of sale deed dated 11.9.2006 being got from her under deception. The learned Judge found that the property of the complainant was transferred and delivered to accused no.1 by the sale deed under deception and accused acted upon the same and got the sale deed executed. These observations of the learned Judge and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Baramati in revision speaks in tune with the record. Therefore, no inference is called for. Petitions 3 lack merit. Hence, both the petitions are dismissed. The learned Judge seized with the matter shall ensure expeditious disposal of the criminal case within the period of one year of receiving communication. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)