Final Order 1

Pdf Text: C.C. NO. 367/SW/2018
ORDER BELOW EXH.1
Read the complaint, documents filed alongwith it.
Heard Ld. Counsel for the applicant at length.
2. He argued that the alleged accused prepared false
and bogus documents and thereby presented the same for
mutating their names in the property which was acquired by
the grand mother of the applicant which is an cognizable
offence therefore pray for investigation under section 156(3)
of Cr.P.C.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that it is
the accused who have no concerned whatever with the
property acquired and possessed by his grandmother. The
alleged accused prepared false and bogus documents and
submitted in revenue record and thereby mutated their names
thus committed an offence. He further argued that the
contents of the complaint disclosed commission of cognizable
offence and therefore pray for investigation under section
156(3) of Cr. P. C.
4. If minutely gone through the documents placed on
record, contents of the complaint and considered the
submission made by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant, it
appears that dispute is in between the complainant and
alleged accused is going on in respect of the property acquired
by Jamunabai. Further documents on record disclosed that
the Jamunabai herself executed power of attorney in favour of
Ganesh Lahane on 22/12/2000. Further the contents of the
-- 1 of 2 --
complaint disclosed that the relations of his grandmother
were strained with her husband therefore she came at
Mumbai where she met accused no.1 who was already
married and having children i.e. accused no. 5, 3, 2 and 4.
Further disclosed her grandmother and accused no.1’s
friendship culminated into physical relationship. If considered
this argument I am of view that there exists a civil dispute in
between complainant and alleged accused in respect of title of
property which was acquired by Jamunabai. The documents
disclosed that the power of attorney executed in favour of
father of alleged accused no.2 as to whether the alleged
accused were begotten from the physical relationship of the
grandmother of the complainant or not, as to whether the
present accused and the complainant are having any
relationship or they are the legal heirs or not, it is a matter of
fact in issue and the same can be decided only in a suit
instituted for claiming and establishing the rights and relation
in the property acquired by Jamunabai, I am of view that no
case as alleged by the complainant is made out which requires
investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. as the dispute in
between the parties is of civil in nature. Therefore, the prayer
of investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is required to
be rejected, hence it is rejected.
Date : 07/08/2019 (R.M. Nerlikar)
Metropolitan Magistrate
66th Court, Andheri, Mumbai
-- 2 of 2 --