Partly allowed

Vanita Sudhir Pathare v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Nov 2014WP/1106/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge criminal writ petition seeking quashing of an order dismissing a criminal complaint alleging forgery of a partition deed. Petitioner claimed her signature was forged by her brother. Court set aside dismissal order and directed further police investigation into questioned documents and missing witnesses before the Magistrate reconsiders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of dismissal set aside; further investigation under Section 202 CrPC directed; Magistrate to consider entire material and decide afresh.

Vanita Sudhir Pathare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Tilak 1/4 (1)WP-1106-14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1106 of 2014

¶5

Vanita Sudhir Pathare .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr .. Respondents

¶6

Mr.Abhijit Rane, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.E.V. Sawant, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶7

Mr. Deepak Thakre, APP for the Respondent State.

¶8

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 17^th NOVEMBER 2014. ---

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1 Rule.

¶11

2 By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶12

3 By consent, heard finally.

¶13

4 The petitioner had filed a complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, alleging that the respondent no.2 herein who is her own brother, is involved in the forgery of the deed of partition registered with the Sub-Registrar of Assurances on 31^st July 1984. According to the petitioner, the signature purporting to be her signature, as appearing in the said document, is not her

¶14

Tilak 2/4 (1)WP-1106-14

¶15

signature, and that the same has been forged by someone. According to her, this forged document has been used by the respondent no.2 to cause wrongful loss to the petitioner. The learned Magistrate, after examining the petitioner on oath, directed investigation under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,(for short 'the Code') to be carried out by the police. The police accordingly, investigated into the matter and submitted a report. After going through the complaint, the statement of the petitioner recorded under section 200 of the Code, and the report of investigation submitted by the police, the learned Magistrate formed an opinion that there were no sufficient grounds for proceeding. As such, he dismissed the complaint as contemplated under section 203 of the Code. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions by filing a Revision Application. However, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge who heard the Revision, found the order passed by the Magistrate to be proper and legal. As such, he dismissed the revision application. It is under these circumstances, that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition, invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

¶16

5 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, as also the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. I have also been shown a copy of the statement of one Satish Rajadhyaksha recorded by the police in the course of investigation, which statement has weighed with the Magistrate in deciding to dismiss the complaint.

¶17

6 In the course of arguments, it is submitted before me that there has been no investigation on certain important aspects

¶18

Tilak 3/4 (1)WP-1106-14

¶19

of the matter. It is submitted firstly that a report from the Government examiner of Questioned Documents with respect to the identity of the signature purporting to be of the petitioner, as appearing in the said deed of partition, ought to have been obtained, which has not been done. It is submitted, secondly, that the statement of the sister of the petitioner and the respondent no.2 – Sunita Chandrakant Patil – who is a signatory to the deed of partition was not recorded in the course of investigation. It is also submitted that the solicitor who prepared the deed of partition, also was not contacted, and his statement was also not recorded in the course of investigation.

¶20

7 After carefully considering the matter from all angles, and since the primary contention that is advanced is that there was scope for further investigation into the matter, I am inclined to set aside the order of dismissal of the complaint, and direct that the question of sufficiency or otherwise of the grounds for proceeding against the respondent no.2 should be considered only after further investigation into the matter is carried out by the police.

¶21

8 The Petition is partly allowed.

¶22

9 The impugned orders are set aside.

¶23

10 Inspector of Police, Versova Police Station shall carry out further investigation into the matter – though under the provisions of section 202 of the Code – and submit a report of such further investigation, as may be carried out, to the learned

¶24

Tilak 4/4 (1)WP-1106-14

¶25

Magistrate. The learned Magistrate shall, thereafter, consider the entire material before him, hear the parties, and then decide afresh, whether or not, there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the respondent no.2, or any other person, in accordance with law.

¶26

11 Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶27

12 Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶28

(ABHAY M.THIPSAY, J)

Vanita Sudhir Pathare v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vanita Sudhir Pathare v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Nilesh Mahendra Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sagar Suresh Bhambid Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hiren Shantilal Kothari and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Shree Suvarna Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs Pratham Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Prakash Babu Shitap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr.Bhagwandas T.Vakani and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.