Naresh H. Patil, J.

1. Rule, returnable forthwith Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 16.10.2012 in Criminal Revision No. 142 of 2012 passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge – 3 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Thane.

3. It is the contention of the petitioner that he entered into an agreement with the respondent no. 2 Mr. Bhupendra Ghisulal Borana on 27.10.2009 in respect of plot of land bearing Old Survey No. 118, New Survey No. 113, Hissa No. 1, admeasuring about 2601 sq. yards of Village Bhayander, Taluka and District Thane. Under the agreement total consideration was fixed at Rupees Two Crores. According to the petitioner, the respondent no. 2 Mr. Bhupendra Ghisulal Borana paid certain amount to the petitioner from 26.10.2009 to 28.10.2009, details of which are mentioned in paragraph 2 of the petition. The petitioner placed on record a copy of agreement executed between the parties on 27.10.2009 at Exhibit 'A'.

4. The petitioner contends that in the year 2012 the respondent no.2 Mr. Bhupendra Borana filed an application Exhibit 269' in Special Civil Suit no. 436 of 2012 earlier bearing R.C.S. No. 69 of 2007 inter-alia contending that the petitioner had executed one agreement in his favour dated 30.12.2009. The said agreement is titled as agreement for development cum sale. The petitioner placed on record copy of the said agreement at Exhibit 'B'. According to the petitioner the said agreement executed on 30.12.2009 clearly shows that it is per se forged agreement. According to the petitioner the signature of the petitioner is forged by respondent no.2 on the said agreement. The receipt clause of the said document is forged one. The said document appears to be executed before notary but the notarised register number which is mandatory is not mentioned in the said document. According to the petitioner the stamps of notary are also forged. The receipt clause does not bear signature of any witness and the signature of the petitioner on the receipt clause is undoubtedly forged.

5. The contention of the petitioner that as soon as the petitioner came to know, the petitioner filed complaint to Bhayander Police Station on 9.7.2012, on 7.9.2012, to the Sr. P.I. Bhayander Police Station, on 10.9.2012 to the Superintendent of Police, Thane. The petitioner had preferred a writ petition in the High Court bearing writ petition no. 3343 of 2012 praying for certain directions for registering a FIR against the accused therein. Prior to filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner had approached the Superintendent of Police Thane Rural. The Superintendent of Police, Thane had directed the Economic Offences Wing, Thane to investigate into the matter. The Economic Offences Wing directed registration of FIR against the present respondent no. 2. The first information report was registered against the accused under the provisions of sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 34 of Indian Penal Code.

6. The petitioner contends that the respondent no.2 had filed one complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thane, bearing No. OMA 546/2012. In the said complaint it was contended by the respondent no. 2 that he had purchased the property in question from the present petitioner vide an agreement dated 30.12.2009. It was further contended that inspite of the order of status quo granted by the Civil Court on 5.10.2009 the present petitioner had induced the respondent no.2 into parting with Rupees Fifty lakhs and entered into the agreement dated 30.12.2009.

7. The petitioner intervened in the proceedings of the complaint and pointed out several documents to the Judicial Magistrate First Class and prayed that no order be passed as prayed for in the said complaint. The Judicial Magistrate First Class on 8.8.2012 passed an order thereby rejecting the prayer for direction under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (“Code”), however the Judicial Magistrate First Class had directed the