Dismissed

Muktar @ Mukhtiyar S/O. Mohamed Bashir v. Hamja Mahamad Malpekar Prop. of Al Amin Construction and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jan 2020WP/5/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition challenging a revisional order confirming issuance of process in a cheating case involving a forged Power of Attorney. The Court rejected the petition as it found no perversity or illegality in the lower court orders and held that the petitioner has not shown any merit to the challenge.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Writ Petition No.5 of 2019 is rejected; no merits found in the petition.

Muktar @ Mukhtiyar S/O. Mohamed Bashir Vs Hamja Mahamad… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

2-WP-5-2019.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.5 OF 2019

¶5

MUKTAR @ MUKHTIYAR S/O.MOHAMED ) BASHIR )...PETITIONER

¶6

V/s.

¶7

HAMJA MAHAMAD MALPEKAR )...RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr.Rushikesh Kale i/b. Mr.R.D.Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr.Chandrakant Solaskar i/b. Mr.Sudhir Prabhu, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶10

Mr.Laxmikant Shrimangale, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. Mr.S.V.Gavand, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶11

CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : 13^th JANUARY 2020

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

1 By this petition, the petitioner/accused no.2 is

¶14

challenging the order dated 26^th November 2015 passed by the

¶15

avk 1/5

¶16

2-WP-5-2019.doc

¶17

revisonal court thereby rejecting his revision petition and confirming the order directing issuance of process against the accused persons.

¶18

2 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned revisional order as also the order dated 10^th June 2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ratnagiri, directing issuance of process for offences punishable under Sections 406, 468, 471, 419, 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

3 It is alleged by the complainant/respondent herein that accused no.1 is a businessman residing at Village Kuve, Taluka Lanja and accused no.2 i.e. the present petitioner Muktar Ahemad is a businessman residing in Kolar District of Karnataka State. As per averments made in the complaint, accused no.1/respondent no.2 herein had proposed respondent no.1 herein to develop 18 gunthas of land situated at Udyamnagar, Ratnagiri with an assurance that he would convince the owner of the property and had helped him in complying legal formalities. avk 2/5

¶20

2-WP-5-2019.doc

¶21

Thereupon, Power of Attorney executed by the owner was shown by the accused no.1 to the complainant and he was represented that the land owner had authorized him to execute the Development Agreement. However, later on it was revealed that Murli Krushna was not the owner of the land and by forging the documents, he was shown as the owner of the land.

¶22

4 The learned revisional court in paragraph 10 of the impugned order has categorically held that the petitioner/accused no.2 had kept quiet for two years after execution of the Development Agreement and allowed the complainant to construct the apartment and subsequently by visiting the site, he has claimed ownership over the property. The revisional court further found that record revealed that the Power of Attorney, on the basis of which accused no.1 executed Development Agreement in the property in question in favour of the complainant, was forged and fabricated and it was the petitioner/accused no.2 who informed the complainant that photograph affixed on the Power of Attorney is that of his but not that of Murli Krushna, Director of

¶23

avk 3/5

¶24

2-WP-5-2019.doc

¶25

Sunship Company. He further informed the complainant that the signature bearing on Power of Attorney is also forged.

¶26

5 On the basis of this finding of facts, the revisional court came to the conclusion that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against all accused persons including the petitioner/ accused no.2.

¶27

6 It is seen that the complaint was accompanied with documents including irrevocable Power of Attorney, photographs on the PAN card etc. and on the basis of material placed on record, the order directing issuance of process came to be issued which was confirmed by the revisional court.

¶28

7 Considering limited scope of entertaining such

¶29

revisional order in writ jurisdiction, as no perversity or illegality is shown in the impugned order, the petition is devoid of merits. The same is therefore rejected.

¶30

avk 4/5

¶31

2-WP-5-2019.doc

¶32

8 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner/accused no.2 is from Karnataka, his personal attendance before the learned trial Magistrate may be dispensed with. The petitioner can apply for dispensing with his personal attendance by filing necessary application for exemption and if such an application is filed, then the learned trial court may consider the same on its own merit.

¶33

avk 5/5

Muktar @ Mukhtiyar S/O. Mohamed Bashir v. Hamja Mahamad Malpekar Prop. of Al Amin Construction and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muktar @ Mukhtiyar S/O. Mohamed Bashir v. Hamja Mahamad Malpekar Prop. of Al Amin Construction and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Ankush Masurkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Subodh Vasudev Mulye Vs Deepak Gunpal Kunnure and Anr.

Subodh Vasudev Mulye Vs Deepak Gunpal Kunnure and Anr.

Suvarna Sarjerao Potdar through Power of Attorney Girish Potdar Vs Prakash Shankar Potdar and Ors.

Central Bureau of Investigation Anti -Corruption Branch Vs Ashok B. Rajani Partner of M/S. Altogether and Ors.

Samir Arvind Kadam and Ors. Vs Swapnaja Samir Kadam and Anr.