COURT v. The State

Judgment

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT:

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing proceedings Criminal Case No. :2: 15/I & R./1998 presently pending before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Bombay

7/9/2000 Remand Application No.184/RA/2000 and the order dated 23/9/1999 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

2. The facts leading to this case and which are dispute that, Mrs. Serah Henriques property situated 171, Martin’s Road, Bandra, Bombay 400 050, residing daughter St. addition tenants, Mrs. May Rodrigues before 1950 residing nephew Mr. Wallace Hayden, present petitioner no.1. The daughter Mrs. Serah Henriques, present petitioner no.2, married petitioner no.1 1961 petitioner nos.3,4 5 marriage. The petitioners continued tenanted premises occupied Mrs. May Rodrigues. On getting landlady negotiating builder develop property Mrs. May Rodrigues a notice landlady June 1972 RAD Suit :3: No. 5129 1972 Small Causes Court Bombay sometimes August 1972 joined landlady, including present respondent no.3 partners construction M/s. Nanavati Construction. Ex decree passed favour tenant 19/10/1973 declaring a tenant addition permanent injunction demolishing tenanted premises against builder landlady granted. The tenant expired 1981 landlady accepted present petitioner no.1 tenant issued receipts 1981

1985. The partners M/s. Nanavati Construction bearing No.1403 1975 specific performance agreement against landlady decreed 9/8/1995 Minutes before Prothonotary HC - Suit No.1403 1975 signed. Sometimes April 1990 petitioner no.1 RAD Suit No.2693 1990 Small Causes Court seeking permanent injunction demolition tenanted premises, though earlier permanent injunction RAD Suit No.5129/1972 instance original tenant already operation. On 10/8/1993 :4: injunction passed RAD Suit No. 2693 1990 challenge Appeal No. 150 1994 unsuccessful. Writ Petition No. 663 1995 Nanavati Builders 20/3/1995 10/8/1993 present respondent no.3 defendant no.3 RAD Suit No. 2693 1990 application Small Causes Court sending original receipts handwriting expert according receipts forged. The application rejected holding documents handwriting expert defendants Written Statement decided during suit. An application before seeking directions produce original receipts application rejected. On 17/4/1998 private present complaint No.15/IR/98 respondent no.3 against Bandra Police investigation alleged forgery receipts produced Small Causes Court. Investigation carried Inspector Bandra Police Station submitted report Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The complainant application Small Causes Court 14/2/2000 praying :5: police inspection Expert disputed receipts proceedings pending, petitioner no.1 arrested Bandra Police Station 9/7/2000 subsequently released on conditional bail on the same day.

3. In his order dated 10/8/1993 the learned Judge Small Causes Court stated admittedly plaintiff-tenant produced receipts record Injunction No. No.122 1990 purported issued landlady photostat copies receipts supplied defendants. provisions C.P.C. direct plaintiff supply copies documents placed reliance already plaintiff. In As defendants doubts veracity receipts, Written Statement agitate hearing suit. The learned Judge further observed defendants liberty to convince the court that the signatures on the rent receipts were forged. :6:

4. When the veracity of the rent receipts was doubtful, defendants, prevented making application Small Causes Court during course forward receipts handwriting expert obtain opinion submission opinion either way, parties liberty subject examine handwriting expert. Thus regarding signature landlady receipts genuineness decided Small Causes Court during receipts brought record. It unwarranted present respondent no.3 approach larned Metropolitan Magistrate a criminal complaint offences punishable Sections 467 469, 471 420 Section 34 IPC authenticity receipts subjudice before Small Causes Court. The respondent no.3 abused process filing a private complaint before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Bombay purpose otherwise issue, whether :7: receipts signed landlady proved handwriting expert police. The criminal complaint harassing petitioners-tenants pillar post. By interim relief granted 29/9/2000 complaint stayed complaint, allowed, result duplication action Small Causes Court competent take for verification of the signatures of the landlady on the rent receipts.

5. Hence, the petition succeeds and the same is hereby allowed partly. Rule absolute of prayer clause (b), (c) and (cc). Writ to go forthwith. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)