Writ petition seeking quashing of FIR in forgery clan allegations. Court held FIR prima facie disclosed cognizable offense and dismissed the petition, deeming it not a fit case for interim relief.
Petition dismissed; interim orders vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
09WP101516.odt
1 / 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1015 OF 2016
Mr.Edward Sabostin Cardoz & Anr. .... Petitioners
versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
... Respondents
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : 02nd MAY, 2018.
P.C. :
the MECR No.3/13 registered with Khar Police Station u/s 465, 467, 471, 406, 420, 120B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
the brother of the Petitioners herein. The gravamen of the allegations against the Petitioner is the forgery of a Deed of
Nesarikar
2 / 4 09WP101516.odt
Assignment, which has been executed in respect of a shop being shop No.4, Lilaram CoOp Hsg. Soc., Chiwum Khardanda, Dandpada, Khar (W), Mumbai, in favour of the Petitioner No.1. The said document bears the thumb impression of the mother of the Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 and it is alleged that the said document was executed on 07/03/2009, whilst the mother was in hospital, who ultimately died on 12/03/2009. The allegation is as regards the manner in which the document was got executed by the Petitioners. The rest of the allegations in the FIR are in respect of the transfer of a flat in Nawab Mansion situated at Chiwum Village, Dandpada, Khar (W), Mumbai, which has been transferred from the name of the mother to the name of the Petitioner No.1 and the rent receipt has also been issued in the name of Petitioner No.1 and he is also drawing financial benefits out of the said flat.
3 / 4 09WP101516.odt
No.2 that the said Deed of Assignment was got executed when their mother was not in her sense as she was in the ICU.
4 / 4 09WP101516.odt
of the Petitioners. The contents of the FIR prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offence, punishable under the provisions which have been invoked by the Investigating Agency. Hence at this stage it cannot be said that the Petitioners have been wrongly arraigned as accused in the offences alleged against them in the FIR. It is required to be noted that against the landlord the chargesheet has already been filed by the Investigating Agency and the chargesheet in the case of the Petitioners could not be filed, as there is a restraint order operating against the Investigating Agency in the above Writ Petition. We therefore do not deem this a fit case to exercise our writ jurisdiction. The reliance placed on the unreported judgment in our view is misplaced, as the facts in the said case stand apart than the facts in the present case.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (R. M. SAVANT, J.)
Mr. Edward Sabostin Cardoz & Anr.
The State of Maharashtra
Respondent No.2
Respondent No.2
R. M. Savant
Sarang V. Kotwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
