JUDGMENT :

Shyam C. Chandak, J.

1. Both the Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,1950 and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing and setting aside of the Order dated 11th May, 2010 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Nashik Road, District – Nashik, below Exhibit 1, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.195/2010, whereby the learned Magistrate referred the said Application for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and pursuant to which, Nashik Road Police Station registered MAG. C.R. No.16 of 2010 on 13th May, 2010 against the Petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Harshad Inamdar, learned Counsel for Accused no.1 and for Respondent No.3 in WP/1880/2010, Mr. R.S. Alange, learned Counsel for Accused No.2 and for Respondent No.2 in WP/2816/2012 and Mr. H.J. Dedhia, learned APP for the Respondent-State in both the Petitions.

3. Rule was granted in the Petitions on 17th July, 2012 and 22nd March, 2023 respectively. The Complainant has filed his Affidavit-in-Reply in Writ Petition No.1880 of 2010. But none present for the Complainant.

4. Facts giving rise to these writ petitions are as under:

4.1) Respondent No.1-Prakash Nivruti Tajanpure [hereinafter referred to as the “Complainant”] has filed the said Cril. Misc. Appln. No.195/2010 against the Petitioners namely, Anantrao Shankarrao Jagtap and Gangubai K. Wadhavane [hereinafter referred to as “Accused Nos.1 and 2” respectively]. In the application it is alleged that, the Complainant and Accused No.1 had social relations with each other. Therefore, Accused No.1 knew about the family members and properties of the Complainant. That, Sundarabai Lahanu Tajanpure [hereinafter referred to as “Sundarabai”] was grandmother of the Complainant. After death of the grandfather of Complainant, Sundarabai performed second marriage. After the second marriage, Sundarabai was known as Sundarabai Laxman Aringale. Accused No.2 is daughter of Sundarabai from the second marriage. Thus, Accused No.2 is step aunt of the Complainant.

4.2) It is alleged that Sundarabai, Complainant’s father Nivruti Lahanu Tajanpure, Bhausaheb Lahanu Tajanpure and Madhukar Lahanu Tajanpure had entered into a registered Partition Deed dated 4th July, 1972 bearing Serial No.1296/72 registered on 20th July, 1972. As recorded in the said Partition Deed, lands bearing Survey No.190/1 and Survey No.299, out of which ¼ share, were the self-acquired property of the Complainant’s grandfather. Sundarabai has no right or interest in the said lands. However, the rest three executant gave the land bearing Survey No.299 to Sundarabai and entitled her to cultivate the said land till her life time, as a provision of her maintenance. Further, it was decided that after death of Sundarabai, Survey No.299 will be divided equally amongst father Nivruti Lahanu Tajanpure, Bhausaheb Lahanu Tajanpure and Madhukar Lahanu Tajanpure. However, Accused Nos.1 and 2, with an intention to grab Survey No.299, prepared a false and bogus ‘Will Deed’ dated 1st July, 1994 in the name of Sundarabai by showing her name as Sundarabai Lahanu Tajanpure, even though she was not medically fit between May, 1994 to August, 1994. Thereafter, both the accused used the said bogus ‘Will Deed’ as genuine for the purpose of entry in the 7/12 record. Thus, both the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420, 468 and 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

5. After considering the above allegations in the said Application and the documents annexed, the learned Magistrate held that the Application discloses the allegations of cognizable offences. Therefore, thorough investigation is needed at the hands of the Police. According to the Complainant, the Accused have committed criminal breach of trust, forgery and cheating. Hence, by the impugned order, the learned Magistrate referred the said Application for investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C