IMPORTANT POINT
The presumption of validity of registered documents places the burden of proof on the challenger, and civil court decisions can significantly impact the viability of subsequent criminal allegations.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

NITIN W.SAMBRE, J. - We heard Mr. Mohite, the learned Senior Advocate and Mr. Sahil Salvi the learned Advocate for Respondent No.3 and the learned APP for the State.

2. The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of Cr.No.300 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 465, 467, 468, 471, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequential charge sheet submitted against the Petitioner.

3. The genesis of the offence alleged against the Petitioner rests on the following facts:

<WXY>a. It is claimed that the complainant - Respondent No.3 and the Petitioner are the relatives. One Bhagirath Bendu Bhoir, father of complainant Dharmendra Bhagirath Bhoir i.e. Respondent No.3 herein was running a restaurant and FL-III license by name Sandhya Lunch Home who died on 8/6/1993.

b. It is the case of Respondent No.3 that because of serious health issues of his father the Petitioner, being a man of confidence was given the aforesaid business for management on hire.

c. The Petitioner, having regard to the advanced age of the father of Respondent No.3 and his indisposed health condition, practiced fraud and got executed a registered sale deed in relation to the aforesaid business premises by forging his signature resulting into the registration of the aforesaid offence.

d. Since in the complaint lodged by Respondent No.3 cognizable offence was disclosed, investigation was carried out and the Petitioner came to be charge-sheeted.</WXY>

4. While questioning the aforesaid, the learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mohite would invite attention of this Court to the registered sale deed dtd. 15/1/1987 executed by the father of Respondent No.3 viz. Bhagirath in favour of the Petitioner thereby creating the absolute right in the form of evidence of title in relation to the property in question. He would further submit that the recitals in the aforesaid sale deed dtd. 15/1/1987 not only transfer the title of the immovable property but also of the furniture, fixtures, business etc. According to him, based on the aforesaid sale deed, the property stood mutated in the name of the Petitioner in the revenue so also the record of the local Planning Authority. He would claim that FL-III license issued under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act came to be transferred in favour of the Petitioner by the Committee headed by Respondent Collector vide its approval dtd. 22/11/1991. According to Mr. Mohite, the learned Senior Advocate, having regard to the claim put-forth by the Respondent No.3 - complainant as regard the forgery of signature during investigation, the matter was referred for the opinion of Handwriting Expert. After verifying the admitted signatures of deceased Bhagirath with that of the signatures on the disputed document dtd. 15/1/1987 i.e. the sale deed in favour of the Petitioner, the Handwriting Expert has given an opinion that the signatures on the disputed document viz. sale deed dtd. 15/1/1987 are that of the deceased Bhagirath. As such, he would urge that neither the act of forgery would be inferred against the Petitioner nor there is element of cheating or criminal breach of trust, as has been alleged.

5. Mr. Mohite, the learned Senior Advocate would also invite our attention to the fact that Respondent No.3 - complainant had filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.841 of 2018 wherein prayer is for the declaration that the aforesaid sale deed dtd. 15/1/1987 is illegal, unlawful not binding on the complainant and for cancellation and declaration that the complainants are the legal heirs of the deceased Bhagirath. A declaration is also sought that the license issued in favour of the Petitioner under the provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act be cancelled and the possession of the suit premises be handed over to the complainants. According to Mr.Mohite, the learned Senior Advocate, in the aforesaid suit an objection was raised by the Applicant herein who was Defendant to the said suit under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of th