Allowed

Kanchan K. Ratahod v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Nov 2009APPLN/3241/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant facing charges of cheating and forgery under the IPC. The court held that the dispute over property was civil in nature and pending adjudication, making custodial interrogation unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. No appearance after sunset.

Kanchan K. Ratahod Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3241 OF 2009

¶5

Kanchan K. Rathod...Applicant
vs.
The State of Maharashtra...Respondent

¶6

Mr.S.V. Marwadi i/b. Ms.Sunita Sharma for the
Applicant.
Mrs.P.P. Shinde, APP for the State.
Mr.M.A. Shaikh for the Complainant.

¶7

CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.

¶8

 DATED : NOVEMBER 9, 2009

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

1Heard Counsel for the applicant, Counsel

¶11

for the complainant and APP for the State.

¶12

2The applicant apprehends arrest in

¶13

connection with the complaint filed by one Rammoni
vide C.R.No.184/2009 for the offence punishable
under Sections 416, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B of
the IPC.

¶14

¶15

3The prosecution case is that the

¶16

complainant Rajmani was residing in a hut which is
situated in a slum and the slum redevelopment scheme
was sanctioned by the competent authority. It is the

¶17

case of the complainant that however, she was not
given flat under the said Scheme and the applicant
herein on the basis of the forged document was
allotted a flat which was transferred in her name.

¶18

4The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of

¶19

the applicant submitted that the applicant along

¶20

with her husband was residing in the hut and the
said hut was sold to her by the complainant by an
agreement which was notorised and after the slum
redevelopment scheme was sanctioned, the builder
entered into an agreement with the present applicant

¶21

which was registered on 28th September, 1998 and by

¶22

the said agreement, the flat was allotted to her.
According to the applicant by virtue of the Power of
Attorney and other documents which were executed by

¶23

¶24

the complainant in the year 1994, 1998, rights were

¶25

assigned in favour of the applicant. The learned
Counsel submitted that the applicant had filed the

¶26

suit in the City Civil Court to protect the

¶27

possession in respect of the flat which was allotted

¶28

to her and for an order of injunction restraining

¶29

the complainant Rajmani from disturbing her
possession. The learned Counsel submitted that in
the said suit, an affidavit in reply was filed in

¶30

the City Civil court by the complainant and in para
13 of the reply, the complainant had stated that the

¶31

Sale Deed annexed to the plaint does not mention the

¶32

room number and the signature appearing on the said
Deed is not her signature. It is also stated that

¶33

the signature appearing in the Irrevocable Power of
Attorney is not her signature. Further it is stated
that the signature shown in the affidavit also is

¶34

not her signature. It is further stated that in the
Ration Card her signature is shown i.e. Old Ration

¶35

Card and the present Ration Card would be compared
to verify the signature appearing on the documents.

¶36

¶37

Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant

¶38

submitted that she had resiled from this stand and
in the complaint she had alleged that being an
illiterate woman, she could not sign and she had
always put her thumb impression.

¶39

5Counsel for the complainant, on the other

¶40

hand, submitted that the reference is made in para
13 of the affidavit in reply of the complainant to

¶41

the word �signature�, she had actually put her thumb
impression and not written the signature. The
learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that

¶42

the complainant being illiterate could not sign and
always used to put her thumb impression.

¶43

applicant invited my attention to the xerox copy of

¶44

the Ration Card which is annexed to the application
and pointed out that apart from putting her thumb

¶45

impression, the complainant had also put her
signature over her thumb impression. He submitted

¶46

¶47

that therefore, the reference made in para 13 of the
affidavit in reply was not a thumb impression but
the signature put by her.

¶48

7The learned Counsel for the complainant,
however, again stated that the word �Rajmani� over

¶49

the thumb impression was forged by the applicant
herein.

¶50

8In the said suit, which was filed by the

¶51

applicant, the City Civil Court was pleased to grant

¶52

ad-interim relief and the parties were directed to

¶53

maintain status quo. The said suit is pending in the
City Civil Court.

¶54

9The learned APP appearing on behalf of the

¶55

State, on the other hand, submitted that the

¶56

applicant�s husband was arrested and later on, he
has been released on bail. He submitted that the

¶57

custodial interrogation of the applicant is
necessary for the purpose of finding out the details

¶58

¶59

of the forgery.

¶60

10After having heard the learned Counsel for

¶61

the applicant and APP for the State, I am of the

¶62

view that taking into consideration the peculiar

¶63

facts and circumstances and more particularly, the

¶64

dispute between the parties over the ownership of
the disputed premises, essentially is a civil
dispute and is pending adjudication before the civil

¶65

court. So far as the allegation of forgery is
concerned which is made by the complainant, without
going into controversy whether the signature
referred to in para 13 of the affidavit in reply is
regarding the thumb impression or the written

¶66

signature which is appearing over the thumb
impression belongs to the complainant or not, in my
view, the custodial interrogation is not necessary

¶67

since the offence is pertaining to the documents on

¶68

which reliance is placed by the applicant and

¶69

disputed by the complainant. The said dispute could
be resolved by obtaining an opinion of the

¶70

¶71

Handwriting Expert after obtaining the specimen
signature/thumb impression of the complainant and
the applicant herein. All the documents are in
possession of the police and therefore, there is no
question of recovery of any other documents from the
present applicant. Another circumstance also which

¶72

is relevant, in my view, is a fact that the present
applicant had filed a suit in the City Civil Court
and after a suit was filed, ad-interim order was
granted and thereafter, the present complaint has
been filed by the complainant which also reveals
that possibly the complaint has been filed as an

¶73

after thought. Under these circumstances, the
applicant is entitled to get an order of
anticipatory bail.

¶74

11The applicant in the event of her arrest in
connection with C.R.No.184/2009 registered with

¶75

Amboli Police Station, Mumbai, for the offences
punishable under Sections 416, 420, 465, 467, 466,

¶76

470, 120B of the IPC, be released on bail in the sum
of Rs.5000/- with one or two sureties in the like

¶77

¶78

amount. The applicant, however, shall report to the
concerned police station as when called. The
applicant shall not be called in the police station
after sunset.

¶79

12It is clarified that the observations made

¶80

in the order are of prima facie nature and the trial
court shall not be influenced in any manner by any
of the observations made by this Court in this
order.

¶81

13The application is disposed of.

Kanchan K. Ratahod v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchan K. Ratahod v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Eklakh Ahmed Abdul Gaffar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Ramgonda Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradeep Sham Khatri Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammad Shakir Hasimali Sayyad Vs the State Ofmaharashtra

Maruti Khandu Ambure Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dattatray @ Pappu Bhagwan Bandal Vs the State of Maharashtra