IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that questions of fact regarding property disputes and alleged forgery should be decided by the appropriate civil and criminal courts, and not through inherent powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

JUDGMENT :

SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.

1. Present Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is seeking to quash C.R. No. 356/2010 registered with Chembur Police Station, Mumbai and C.C. No. 394/PW-12 arising out of the said crime, now pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kurla, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under sections 465, 467, 471, 420 and 120-B of I.P.C.

2. Heard Mr. Pritam Runwal, learned advocate for the Petitioner and Mrs. A.A. Takalkar, learned APP for the State.

3. Record indicates that, by an Order dated 15th February 2012, Rule was issued. Mr. B.M. Ganu, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 had waived service at that time. However, none appeared for the Respondent No. 2 when the Petition was taken up for hearing.

4. The impugned F.I.R. has been registered on the report of the Respondent No. 2 wherein, in short it is narrated as under:

4.1 That, since long the Respondent No. 2 has been residing in flat No. 11, in the Society stated in his address in the cause title. The Petitioner has been also residing there in flat No. 12. In the year 1998, the said Society members purchase the balance F.S.I. and T.D.R. of the Society and constructed 23 flats there. As pre-decided, the additional 23 flats were to be allotted amongst the existing members of the said Society and not be sold to any outsider or non member thereof. The said 23 flats were to be allotted to the members as per the square feet area (size) of their present flat. It is alleged that, F.S.I. Committee of the following was constituted to construct the additional 23 flats: (1) Mr. Shirish Shah, (2) Smt. Sudha Sharma (Petitioner herein), (3) Smt. Geeta Manchandani, (4) Mr. Tushar Shah and (5) K.P.S. Nair i.e. Respondent No. 2. Mr. Shirish Shah was Chairman of the F.S.I. Committee even though he was not member of the Society. That, the F.S.I. Committee had the right to decide the area to be allotted to the member willing to buy flats in the 23 flats to be constructed and accordingly, the willing member was to pay for the construction and other expenses.

4.2 That, in view of the above, separate Letter of Intent/Undertaking was taken from the members willing to purchase a flat/s in the said 23 flats. On 4th September 1998, 16 members of the Society gave their separate Letter of Intent/Undertaking on a stamp paper of Rs. 20/-. That, Respondent No. 2 undertook to take/purchase flat No. 42, admeasuring 952 Sq. feet, situated on the 4th Floor in the proposed 23 flats, which was in front of his flat No. 11 and paid for it total Rs. 13,94,000/- as decided by the F.S.I. committee. That, the said Letter of Intent/Undertaking was duly signed by the Respondent No. 2, his son Suresh and daughter Sheela and it was handed over to the F.S.I. Committee. That, similar type of Letter of Intent/Undertaking was given by the Petitioner and the other willing members.

4.3 It is alleged that, the Respondent No. 2 thereafter went to America for 8 months, however, during his absence, his Letter of Intent/Undertaking was altered behind his back i.e. his choice of flat No. 42 in the said 23 flats to be constructed was changed to flat No. 12 at the relevant places and the original 4th floor (of flat No. 42) was erased/changed to read as 1st floor (for flat No. 12). Thus, by way of said alterations, the Society was shown that, flat No. 12 originally owned by the Petitioner, was given to Respondent No. 2 exchanging it with flat No. 42 by mutual consent of both.

4.4 It is further alleged that, on 6th July, 2000 the Petitioner asked for a NOC from the Society to mortgage her flat No. 12 for obtaining loan from certain Bank. On 8th July 2000, the Society gave the NOC. That, out of the said 23 flats, flat Nos. 41 and 43 were allotted to the Petitioner as the same were in front of her existing flat No. 12. That, the said flat Nos. 41, 42 and 43 are in ‘A’ Wing and if flat No. 42 is allotted to the Petitio