Dismissed

Captain Vikram Raj Manohar v. Yadvi Kunder and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Nov 2023APPP/183/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application seeking quashment of a private complaint alleging cheating and forgery, the High Court dismissed the petition. The court held that since the trial was at the stage of framing charges and an enquiry report under Section 202 CrPC established a prima facie case, charges had to be framed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal complaint case No.382/SW/2013 was not quashed; the trial court was requested to expedite the proceedings.

Captain Vikram Raj Manohar Vs Yadvi Kunder and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY SANJAY SONAWANE SONAWANE Date: Chitra Sonawane. 2023.11.11 APL-321-2016.doc 15:10:15 +0530

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Criminal Application No.321 of 2016

¶4

Smt. Yadvi Kunder,
Aged 34 years, Occ: Service
Resident of C/o.B-101, 1st floor,
Pushpavatika Building,
Shiv Vallabh Cross Road
Ashokvan, Rawalpada
Dahisar (East), Mumbai-400068.

¶5

...Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. The State of Maharahstra
Through the Public Prosecutor
Appellate Side, High Court
Mumbai.

¶8

2. Mr Vikram Raj Manohar,
Aged 39 years, Occ: Service
R/a: B-35, 208 SFS, Opp.Mother Dairy
New Town Yelahanka,
Bangalore, Karnataka.... Respondents
(Original Complainant)

¶9

With
 Criminal Application No.183 of 2019
 In

¶10

Criminal Application (APL) No.321 of 2016

¶11

Captain Vikram Raj Manohar
Aged :43 Years, Occ:Service

¶12

 Page No. 1 of 9
____________________________________________
10 November 2023

¶13

Chitra Sonawane. APL-321-2016.doc

¶14

B-35, 208 SFS, Opp.Mother Dairy
New Town Yelahanka,
Bangalore, Karnataka

¶15

..
Applicant
(Original Respondent
No 2 in APL 321 of
2016)

¶16

VERSUS

¶17

Smt. Yadvi Kunder
Aged :37 years, Occupation :Service
Pushpavatika Building, Shiv Vallabh
Cross Road, Ashokvan, Rawalpada
Dahisar(East), Mumbai-400068..Respondent No 1
 (Original Petitioner in
 APL 321 of 2016)

¶18

AND
The State of Maharashtra
Through Public Prosecutor
Appellate Side, High Court
Mumbai... Respondent No 2
 (Original Respondent
 No 1 in APL 321 of 2016)

¶19

Mr Abhiraj Parab, Advocate a/w Anjali Malekar for petitioner.
Mr Vivek Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr HJ Dedhia,APP for State.

¶20

 Coram : R. N. Laddha, J.

¶21

 Reserved on : 13 October 2023.
 Pronounced on : 10 November 2023.

¶22

Order :

¶23

Rule.The rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard

¶24

 Page No. 2 of 9
____________________________________________
10 November 2023

¶25

Chitra Sonawane. APL-321-2016.doc

¶26

finally at the request and with the consent of the learned
Counsel for the parties.

¶27

2.The petitioner is the wife of respondent No.2. They got
married on 16.7.2016 and they have a son named Yash
Vikram, who lives with the petitioner. The petitioner claims
that respondent No.2 treated her with cruelty, deserted her
and their son for no valid reason. The petitioner and
respondent No.2 have been in a marital conflict since 2010.
Their divorce and maintenance cases are pending in the
Family Court, Mumbai. Respondent No.2/husband lodged a
criminal case bearing No.382/SW/2013 against the petitioner
wife in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th Court,
Borivali, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections
415, 416, 417, 419, 420, 463, 464, 468, 470 and 471 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). The complaint accuses
the petitioner wife of applying for their son’s passport by
falsifying facts and changing the child’s name without her
husband’s (respondent No.2) consent. According to the
petitioner, the passport was never issued. The complaint case
is at the stage of evidence before charge and the testimony of
three witnesses, including the husband (respondent No.2
herein) have been taken.

¶28

 Page No. 3 of 9

¶29

10 November 2023

¶30

Chitra Sonawane. APL-321-2016.doc

¶31

3.Mr Abhiraj Parab, the learned Counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the complaint was based solely on the “the
issuance of a passport”, which was never issued. The police
officer’s evidence showed that he only recorded the statement
of the complainant, the accused. The forensic expert’s
evidence was irrelevant to the complainant’s case as the expert
did not implicate the petitioner’s wife in this case. The entire
complaint and the evidence recorded before the charge fail to
reveal any loss or injury caused to the respondent/husband.
There is no financial gain, loss, or benefit for anyone. The
child’s name was also changed back to the original. Learned
Counsel submitted that this complaint is only a tool of
personal revenge to get back at the petitioner/wife. In
support of his contention, he relied on the decision of Vijay
Narayandas Rizwani Vs. Dilip @ Dhanraj s/o Navalrai
Rizwani & Anr1 and Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration2.

¶32

4.Mr Vivek Joshi, learned Counsel for the respondent
No.2 submitted that the petitioner had deliberately concealed
facts and purposely failed to produce many documents before
this Court. He further alleged that the petitioner had forged
the signatures of respondent No.2/husband on their minor

¶33

1 1996(1) Bom.C.R.322

¶34

2 2 S.C.R.585

¶35

 Page No. 4 of 9
____________________________________________
10 November 2023

¶36

Chitra Sonawane. APL-321-2016.doc

¶37

son’s passport application and a false affidavit. The petitioner
also dishonestly changed the name of the child from Yash
Vikram to Greesh Narayan Vikram. Respondent No.2 became
aware of the name change only when the petitioner filed a
maintenance petition. Respondent No.2 then approached the
Family Court to restore the original name. Although the
Family Court ordered the petitioner to do so, the petitioner
did not comply.

¶38

5.This made respondent No.2 suspicious, and he filed an
RTI application with the passport office in Mumbai. The
passport office provided him all the documents, including the
application. Upon examining those documents, respondent
No.2 discovered that his signatures were forged in them. He
then filed a private complaint against the petitioner. The
learned Magistrate verified the complaint and instructed the
police to conduct an enquiry under Section 202 CrPC, which
established a prima facie case against the petitioner. The
learned Magistrate issued a process only after receiving the
enquiry report under Section 202 CrPC. Mr Joshi, submitted
that the petitioner had forged signatures of respondent No.2
and produced many forged documents. The petitioner used
these forged documents as if they were genuine. He also

¶39

 Page No. 5 of 9

¶40

10 November 2023

¶41

Chitra Sonawane. APL-321-2016.doc

¶42

stated that the petitioner obtained her passport as a single
person and did not obtain a NOC from Air India, even
though she worked for PSU. The petitioner intentionally
concealed her marital status, and her passport was
impounded, as she was penalised for lying.

¶43

6.Learned Counsel further argued that a trial was at the
stage of framing charge and that respondent No.2 had made a
strong case against the petitioner to frame charge.
Additionally, the petitioner did not cross-examine the police
officer who conducted the enquiry under Section 202 CrPC
and found substance in the complaint. The forensic expert
also opined that the disputed signatures were not of
respondent No.2 and were forged by someone else.

¶44

7.This Court has carefully considered the submissions
made by the learned Counsel for both parties and the
materials on record.

¶45

8.It reveals from the record that respondent No.2 filed a
private criminal complaint bearing No.382/SW/2013 before
the Court of learned Magistrate against the petitioner. The
learned Magistrate verified the complaint and instructed the
police to conduct an enquiry under Section 202 CrPC. After

¶46

 Page No. 6 of 9

¶47

10 November 2023

¶48

Chitra Sonawane. APL-321-2016.doc

¶49

examining the enquiry report, the learned Magistrate issued a
process against the petitioner under Sections 415, 416, 417,
419, 420, 463, 464, 468, 470 and 471 of the Indian Penal
Code. Thereafter, evidence of three witnesses, including the
complainant/respondent No.2, was recorded before charge, as
contemplated under Section 244 of CrPC. The trial is at the
stage of framing charge.

¶50

9.The enquiry conducted by PI Mr Sachin Patil (PW2)
under Section 202 CrPC reveals that the respondent No.2’s
complaint has substance. The material on record shows that
several documents related to the passport application, such as
affidavit for name change, minor, marriage, and proof of
address like electricity bills and correspondence with the
regular passport office, had respondent No.2’s signature
tampered with. The newspaper advertisement claimed that
respondent No.2/husband had renamed his son from Yash
Vikram to Greesh Narayan Vikram based on an affidavit of
name change. The Notary’s affidavit demonstrates that the
petitioner/wife brought someone with her and that he signed
the papers in front of him as respondent No.2. From the
contents of the complaint, the documents brought on record,
and the evidence, it is clear that a prima facie case is made out

¶51

 Page No. 7 of 9

¶52

10 November 2023

¶53

Chitra Sonawane. APL-321-2016.doc

¶54

to frame charge against the petitioner/wife. At the stage of
framing charge, the probative value of the material brought
on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought by
prosecution have to be accepted as true at that stage. The
petitioner has not cross-examined the police officer who
conducted the enquiry, submitted a report under Section 202
CrPC, and found substance in the complaint of respondent
No.2. That would mean that whatever has been stated by this
witness in his examination-in-chief, at this stage, would have
to be accepted as it is for the purpose of framing of charge
against the petitioner. Perusal of the evidence brought on
record is sufficient to frame charge against the accused
petitioner/wife. In such circumstances, no case is made out to
quash the criminal complaint case No.382/SW/2013, pending
before the Court of learned Magistrate.

¶55

10. It is settled position in law that while exercising the
powers under Section 482 CrPC, the allegations made by the
witnesses against the accused persons are to be scrutinised on
their face value, taking them to be true and it is not possible
for the Court to go into the aspect of reliability or credibility
or trustworthiness of the witnesses.

¶56

11. The facts of the cited cases are altogether different from

¶57

 Page No. 8 of 9

¶58

10 November 2023

¶59

Chitra Sonawane. APL-321-2016.doc

¶60

the case in hand, and therefore, are not relevant in the present
case.

¶61

12. For the foregoing reasons the Criminal Application
No.321 of 2016 stands dismissed. In view of the disposal of
the aforesaid criminal application, the pending application
bearing No.183 of 2019 stands disposed of. As the criminal
complaint case No.382/SW/2013 is pending since 2013, the
learned trial Court is requested to expedite the same.

¶62

[R. N. Laddha, J.]

¶63

 Page No. 9 of 9

¶64

10 November 2023

Captain Vikram Raj Manohar v. Yadvi Kunder and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Captain Vikram Raj Manohar v. Yadvi Kunder and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Chhottal Joshi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Baburao Isrya Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sakinabai Abid Hardawala and Ors. Vs Firoze Dawood Patel and Ors.

M/S. Ivy Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chandresh Sampat and Anr.

Sanjay Dadu Ohal Vs Narayan Bhagwan Khare and Anr.

Dr. Priyanka N Khare Vs Dr Narayan Bhagwan Khar and Anr.