KISHOR PURUSHOTTAM CHAUDHARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 61st Court at Kurla, Mumbai on 21..2015 in CC No.422/PW/2009 thereby refusing to discharge the accused from the offences of forgery and cheating punishable under sections 465, 467, 468, 471 /w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under sections 420, 120B, 107 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners have challenged the said order of Metropolitan Magistrate by filing Criminal Revision Application No.1004 of 2015, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Court by order dated 3.12.2016. Hence, this petition.

(2.) As per the case of the prosecution, the petitioners have committed forgery by preparing three forged rent receipts of electricity meters in respect of three flats 101, 102 and 103 in one Shreyas building on the first floor. The incident of forgery has taken place in March 2008 and have submitted in the name of CVK & Associates, the partnership firm, owned by the petitioners and submitted them to the BEST undertaking for transfer of the electricity meters.

(3.) Mr.Ponda, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence of cheating or forgery. Assuming even if they have prepared the forged documents, yet, it will not amount to forgery or cheating as there is no wrongful loss or gain to either of the parties. He has submitted that the three apartments purchased by the petitioners are of the partnership firm CVK & Associates. They have purchased flat Nos.101, 102, 103 by a registered sale deed dated 13.12.2007, from the owner Dr.Chhaya Satyanand Shastri and Dr.B. Satyanand Shastri, who are the sister and brother in law of the present complainant. By a registered conveyance, which was executed pursuant to the consent terms dated 2.11.2007 which were filed in Suit NO.1626 of 2006 by CVK & Associates against their vendors Chhaya and Satyanand Shastri where the present complainant Shreyas @ Ashok Pathare as a concurring party. Mr.Ponda submitted that after the sale deed, these three documents were submitted to the BEST undertaking. They were available as they were issued by the complainant or some other person but the petitioners have not fabricated these documents. He relied on the report of the hand-writing expert which is inconclusive. He submitted that this cannot be considered as a forgery in the eyes of law because there is no wrongful loss caused to the complainant. He submitted that the learned trial Court and the learned Magistrate have not considered this aspect and have rejected the application.