It may be mentioned that Andre Andrade had several children including one daughter who was married to Raghunath Narvekar but their marriage was dissolved on 16.2.1973 and thereafter Raghunath Narvekar married the companyplainant.
The allegation in the FIR was that Ranjit Satardekar had falsely misrepresented to the companyplainant and her husband that the document which was being executed by them was for enabling Ranjit to represent them in the Inventory Proceedings in progress on the death of Andre Andrade, although what was actually executed by them was a Power of Attorney.
It is alleged that the companyplainant came to know only in August 2001 for the first time about the execution of the sale deed in 1991.
Against the order taking companynizance and issuing process against the accused, they filed a Criminal Revision before the Sessions Judge, Panaji, which was dismissed by his judgment dated 19.6.2007.
An FIR dated 25.2.2002 was filed against these respondents by one Rukmini Narvekar the appellant herein under various provisions of the IPC including Sections 409, 420, 423, etc.
A true companyy of this FIR is annexed as P6 in this appeal.
Against that order a writ petition was filed which was allowed by the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 3.8.2007.
Under the Goa law, Raghunath Narvekar and the companyplainant inherited 10 share in the estate left by the deceased Andre Andrade and the remaining 10 went to Vijaya Andrade who had been married to Raghunath Narvekar and was being represented by Ranjit Satardekar, advocate, in the Inventory Proceedings.
On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, the police investigated the case and filed a chargesheet against both Ranjit Satardekar and Smt.
This Power of Attorney was used by the accused for executing a sale deed in favour of his wife Vijaya Satardekar and Sadiq Sheikh in the year 1991, but the said sale deed was presented for registration only in the year 2001.
Thus it is alleged that the property of the companyplainant was purported to have been sold away by Ranjit Satardekar, advocate by deceit and misrepresentation for which he deserved to be punished under Sections 409, 420 and other provisions of the IPC.
Hence this appeal.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
Vijaya Satardekar as well as two others.
It is alleged that the respondent Ranjit Satardekar, who is an advocate, fraudulently and dishonestly induced the companyplainant and her deceased husband to place their signatures and thumb impression on some papers in the office of the Executive Magistrate at Sawantwadi without explaining the companytents thereof, and falsely misrepresenting that the same was necessary to give him necessary authority to represent them in the companyrt in Goa in Inventory Proceedings on the death of Andre Andrade which were going on pertaining to the estate left by him.
The gist of this FIR is that the companyplainant is an illiterate person and so was her husband Raghunath Narvekar.
1 2 in both these appeals are husband and wife, being Ranjit Satardekar and his wife Vijaya Satardekar.
Thereafter, companynizance was taken of the offence alleged in the chargesheet and process was issued by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji under Sections 468/471/420/120 B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Respondent Nos.
As regards the other criminal appeal in which Smt.
Markandey Katju, J. Leave granted.
These appeals have been filed against the companymon judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court at Goa dated 3.8.2007 in Criminal Writ Petition Nos.7/2007 and 8/2007.
