- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 920 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 71 OF 2019 CHANDRAKANT S/O. BHAGWAN CHINCHALKAR (DHAWALE) VERSUS SUBHASH S/O. NARAYAN KONDLWAR AND OTHERS Mr.V.R.Dhorde, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.V.M.Lomte, APP for the Respondent/State. ( CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. ) DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant. 2. The Applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 18.01.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.12/2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhokar, Dist.Nanded. The learned Sessions Judge, vide the aforesaid impugned judgment and order, was pleased to dismiss the appeal thereby confirming the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Bhokar, Dist.Nanded dated 16.07.2010, wherein the respondent/accused came to be acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 465 r/w 34, 467 r/w 34, 471, 474 of the IPC. khs/Sept.2026/71 2026:BHC-AUG:47055 - 2 - 3. The learned Advocate for the Applicant vehemently submitted that both the Courts have committed a grave error of Law and has not appreciated the fact that the Applicant was owner of the property and the accused persons having executed the forged sale deed, they have committed aforesaid offences. According to him, the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused persons before the Trial Court by examining the witnesses. The testimony of the said witnesses is trustworthy and therefore, it was not appropriate for the learned Trial Court to pass the order thereby acquitting the accused persons. He further submitted that the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. dated 16.07.2010, thereby acquitting the accused persons, was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.12/2013. 4. In the said appeal, after hearing the learned Advocates for the parties, the learned Sessions Court also did not consider that the accused persons are actually involved in the crime and as such, was required to quash and set aside the learned Magistrate’s order thereby convicting the accused persons. Therefore Mr.Dhorde, learned Advocate for Applicant submits that both the Courts below have failed khs/Sept.2026/71 - 3 - to consider the evidence in proper perspective and as such committed grave error of Law. He, therefore, prayed for allowing the instant criminal revision application thereby convicting the accused persons. 5. The learned APP also submits that the prosecution has established the case before the Trial Court, as such, he is supporting the applicant. 6. After hearing the learned Advocate for the Applicants and the learned APP and on going through the impugned orders passed by the learned Sub Ordinate Courts below, it is found that the Applicant had filed complaint dated 08.04.2000, which came to be registered as Crime No.45/2000 for the offences punishable u/s 465, 467, 471, 474 r/w 34 of the IPC. In pursuance to that crime, the Investigating Officer has conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused persons and during trial the prosecution has examined the witnesses. After recording the evidence and hearing the learned Advocates for the respective parties, the learned Trial Court was pleased to acquit the accused persons. The judgment rendered by the learned J.M.F.C. Bhokar, upon perusal, discloses that the prosecution has failed khs/Sept.2026/71 - 4 - to establish that the document in question has been forged by the accused persons. In fact, the prosecution also failed to establish that the accused persons were not entitled to execute the said document. Upon perusing evidence brought before the Trial Court by the prosecution, since the aforesaid aspect was not established, therefore, the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order thereby acquitting the accused persons. 7. The order passed by the learned Sessions Court also came to be perused. The learned Sessions Court in Appeal also observed that the complainant has not till date proved that he is owner of the suit property and as such he is not entitled to claim that the respondent/accused by executing the sale deed, have committed the offence of forgery. The learned Appellate Court also found that the learned Trial Court has not committed any mistake by acquitting the accused persons and therefore the appeal came to be dismissed. Mr.Dhorde submitted that in civil proceedings, he has been declared as owner of the suit property. However, litigating is pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court. khs/Sept.2026/71 - 5 - 8. After perusal of both the orders, it is clear that there are concurrent findings. In this Revision Application, there is very narrow scope for this Court to exercise jurisdiction u/s 397 of the Cr.P.C. As there is no illegality/irregularity in the judgments passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, I found this application devoid of merit. Aspect of pending civil litigation between the parties does not affect the decision of the trial or appellate Court. After the rights of parties are crystalised as regards ownership, the appropriate course of action can be adopted by the affected party if permissible in Law. However, as on date such pendency of civil litigation does not affect or prohibit this Court to dispose of instant Revision Application. 9. Hence, the Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed with following order :- [a] Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed with no order as to costs. [b] The impugned orders passed by the learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court are hereby confirmed. ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.) khs/Sept.2026/71