JUDGMENT

Markandey Katju, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court (at Goa) dated 3.8.2007 in Criminal Writ Petition Nos.7/2007 and 8/2007.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in both these appeals are husband and wife, being Ranjit Satardekar and his wife Vijaya Satardekar. An FIR dated25.2.2002 was filed against these respondents by one Rukmini Narvekar (the appellant herein) under various provisions of the IPC including Sections 409, 420, 423, etc. A true copy of this FIR is annexed as P6 in this appeal. The gist of this FIR is that the complainant is an illiterate person and so was her husband Raghunath Narvekar. It is alleged that the respondent Ranjit Satardekar, who is an advocate, fraudulently and dishonestly induced the complainant and her deceased husband to place their signatures and thumb impression on some papers in the office of the Executive Magistrate at Sawantwadi without explaining the contents there of, and falsely misrepresenting that the same was necessary to give him necessary authority to represent them in the court in Goa in Inventory Proceedings on the death of Andre Andrade which were going on pertaining to the estate left by him. It may be mentioned that Andre Andrade had several children including one daughter who was married to RaghunathNarvekar but their marriage was dissolved on 16.2.1973 and thereafter Raghunath Narvekar married the complainant. Under the Goa law, Raghunath Narvekar and the complainant inherited 10% share in the estate left by the deceased Andre Andrade and the remaining 10% went to Vijaya 3Andrade who had been married to Raghunath Narvekar and was being represented by Ranjit Satardekar, advocate, in the Inventory Proceedings.

5. The allegation in the FIR was that Ranjit Satardekar had falsely misrepresented to the complainant and her husband that the document which was being executed by them was for enabling Ranjit to represent them in the Inventory Proceedings in progress on the death of Andre Andrade, although what was actually executed by them was a Power of Attorney. This Power of Attorney was used by the accused for executing a sale deed in favour of his wife Vijaya Satardekar and Sadiq Sheikh in the year 1991, but the said sale deed was presented for registration only in the year 2001. It is alleged that the complainant came to know only in August 2001 for the first timeabout the execution of the sale deed in 1991. Thus it is alleged that the property of the complainant was purported to have been sold away by Ranjit Satardekar, advocate by deceit and misrepresentation for which he deserved to be punished under Sections 409, 420 and other provisions of the IPC.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, the police investigated the case and filed a charge sheet against both Ranjit Satardekar and Smt. Vijaya Satardekar as well as two others. Thereafter, cognizance was taken of the offence alleged in the charge sheet and process was issued by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji under Sections 468/471/420/120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. Against the order taking cognizance and issuing process against the accused, they filed a Criminal Revision before the Sessions Judge, Panaji, which was dismissed by his judgment dated 19.6.2007. Against that order and it petition was filed which was allowed by the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 3.8.2007. Hence this appeal.

8. We have heard detailed arguments on both sides and we are of the opinion that judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained so far as it has quashed the complaint and proceedings against Ranjit Satardekar, but it has to be sustained so far as it relates to Vijaya Satardekar.

9. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge of the High Co