Bombay High Court
Mangaljeet Y. Siram And Others vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 22 February, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
13 apl 15.15.jud.odt
1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.15 OF 2015
1. Mangaljeet Yashwantrao Siram,
aged, 52 years, Occ. Retd.
Superintendent of Police,
Anti Corruption Bureau,
Amravati, R/o. Near Lal
Bangala, Behind Circuit
House, Amravati
2. Kiran Ambadas Dhote,
Aged 57 years, Occ. Sub
Divisional Police Officer,
Chandur Railway, Distt.
Amravati.
3. Girish Yeshwantrao
Bobade, aged 51 years,
Occ. Service, Police
Inspector, Paratwada,
Distt., Amravati, R/o
Paratwada.
4. Eknath Keshav Khadse,
aged 60 years, Occ. Retd.
Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Anti Corruption
Bureau, Amravati,R/o.
Nagpur.
5. Santoshkumar
Kanhaiyalal Varma, aged
68 years, Occ. Retd.
Additional Superintendent
of Police, Anti Corruption
Bureau, Amravati, R/o
108, Nelco Society,
Subhash Nagar, Nagpur
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2021 10:42:40 :::
13 apl 15.15.jud.odt
2/8
6. Arvind Deorao Pande,
aged 67 years, Occ. Retd.
Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Anti Corruption
Bureau, Amravati, R/o
Wasundhara Colony
Gadge Nagar, Amravati.
7. Shivshankar Samsherbahaddur Thakur,
Aged 55 years, Occ. Police
Inspector, Barshi Takli,
Distt. Akola
8. Abdul Rehman Gaffur, aged 59
years, Occ. Retd. Police
Sub Inspector, Police
Station Frezarpura,
Amravati, R/o. Rambhaji
Nagar, Yavatmal.
....APPLICANTS
// VERSUS //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Police Station
Officer, Police Station
Frezarpura, Amravati
2. Bhagwan Shivramji
Patekar, aged 68 years,
Occ. Retd, Deputy
Superintendent of Police,
R/o Vijsheni Colony,
Near Kathora Naka,
Amravati, Tq. and Distt.
Amravati .... NON-APPLICANTS
Shri A.S. Mardikar, Senior Advocate with Shri Suresh Khemka, Advocate
for the applicants.
Ms. Mayuri Deshmukh, APP for the non-applicant No.1/State.
Shri Sumit B. Gandhe, Advocate for the non-applicant No.2.
___________________________________________________________________
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2021 10:42:40 :::
13 apl 15.15.jud.odt
3/8
CORAM : Z. A. HAQ AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 22.02.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER: AMIT B. BORKAR, J.]
1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the applicants have challenged registration
of the First Information Report No.320/2014 dated 17.12.2014
and order dated 08.12.2014 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class Court No.4, Amravati and also Regular
Criminal Case No.968/2007 pending before learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class Court No. 5, Amravati.
2. The non-applicant No.2 had filed criminal complaint
No.968/2007 in the Court of 5th Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Amravati seeking a direction to register First Information Report
against the applicants. In the said complaint, it is alleged that
the applicants have prepared forged documents for the purpose
of its use in a criminal proceedings filed against the applicants
under the provisions of Section 13 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Court No.4, Amravati by order dated 08.12.2014 passed an
13 apl 15.15.jud.odt
order transfer the complaint to the Commissioner of Police,
Amravati (Economic Wing) for the purpose of investigation. In
pursuance of the order dated 08.12.2014, the First Information
Report No.320/2014 under Sections 167, 217, 218, 465, 466,
468, 469 and 470, 471 109 and 120-B read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code came to be registered against the
applicants. The complaint filed by the non-applicant No.2 dated
17.12.2014 was treated as the First Information Report.
3. The applicants by way of present application, have
challenged the order dated 08.12.2014 passed under Section
156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and consequent the
First Information Report dated 17.12.2014 registered in
pursuance of the order under Section 156(3). This Court on
14.01.2015 issued notice for final disposal and granted interim
relief in terms of prayer clause (ii )and (iv) of the application. By
prayer clause (ii) and (iv) of the application, the applicants have
sought relief not to take coercive steps against the applicants
during the pendency of the present application and also stay to
the further investigation for Crime No.320/2014 registered by
the non-applicant No.1-Police Station.
13 apl 15.15.jud.odt
4. The non-applicant No.1 in pursuance of the notice has
filed reply and stated that the prosecution has registered the
First Information Report as per the order passed by the Judicial
Magistrate. It is further stated that as per the complaint filed by
the non-applicant No.2, it has been alleged that the applicants
have committed forgery in relation documents which were
submitted in criminal proceedings filed under the provisions of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
5. The non-applicant No.2 has also filed its reply and
stated that the applicants have forged documents for the purpose
of using it in the criminal proceedings filed under the provisions
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 bearing Special A.C.B.
No.7/2008. It is stated in the reply that the learned Ad-Hoc
District & Assistant Sessions Judge, Amravati by judgment and
order dated 30.07.2019 has acquitted the applicants for the
offences punishable under Section 13 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and other offences alleged against the
applicants. The non-applicant No.2 has annexed copy of the
judgment in Special A.C.B. No.7/2008.
13 apl 15.15.jud.odt
6. Shri A.S. Mardikar, Learned Senior Advocate
submitted that in Special A.C.B. No.7/2008 no charge was
framed against the applicants that the applicants had forged any
document for the purpose of using it in the said proceedings. He
submitted that in the judgment dated 30.07.2019, there are no
reasons or findings as regards the allegations against the
applicants of forging documents for the purpose of using it in the
said criminal proceedings.
7. The Advocate for the non-applicant No.2 has not
pointed out that there was such charge framed against the
applicants in relation to documents allegedly forged by the
applicants for the purpose of using it in the said criminal
proceedings. He has not seriously disputed the submission made
on behalf of the applicants that the Ad-Hoc District & Assistant
Sessions Judge, Amravati has not given such reasons and has not
charged the applicants for the offence of forgery of documents to
be used for the purpose of said criminal proceeding under the
provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
13 apl 15.15.jud.odt
8. Having considered the First Information Report; the
judgment of Special A.C.B. No.7/2008 dated 30.07.2019;
undisputed position that there is no discussion in the judgment
dated 30.07.2019 about alleged forgery; no charges were framed
against the applicants for forgery of documents for the purpose
of using it in the said proceedings, we are satisfied that the First
Information Report alongwith the order of investigation under
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further
proceedings in Criminal Case in pursuance of the First
Information Report No.320/2014 deserve to be quashed and set
aside as continuance of same would amount of abuse of process
of Court.
9. We, therefore, pass the following order:-
(i) Judgment and order dated 08.12.2014 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No.4 Amravati and
the First Information Report dated 17.12.2014 registered with
the non-applicant No.1-Police Station with Crime No.320/2014
for the offences punishable under Sections 167, 217, 218, 465,
466, 468, 469 and 470, 471 109 and 120-B read with Section
13 apl 15.15.jud.odt
34 of the Indian Penal Code and Regular Criminal Case
No.968/2007 is quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in above terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
manisha
