Arvind S/O Manohar Mahakalkar vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3643 Bom

                                                      8A APL 269.15.jud(1).odt
                                              1/5



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

             CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.269 OF 2015



  1.              Shri Arvind S/o Manohar Mahakalkar,
                  Age 50 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
                  R/o 20-20/21, Nilkanth Apartment,
                  Manish Nagar, Somalwada,
                  Nagpur                                        ....APPLICANTS


                                      // VERSUS //


  1.              The State of Maharashtra,
                  Through Police Station Officer,
                  Police Station Sadar, Nagpur;

  2.              Shri Ghanshyam S/o Jiwanlal Kharpuriya,
                  Aged about 62 years, Occupation-
                  Retired, Resident of Plot No.19,
                  Panchatara Society, Manish Nagar,
                  Somalwada Nagpur,
                  P.S. Hudkeshwar,
                  Nagpur                            .... NON-APPLICANTS

  None for the applicant.
  Shri T.A.Mirza, APP for the non-applicant No.1/State.
  Shri S.G. Karmarkar, Advocate for the non-applicant No.2.
  ___________________________________________________________________

                               CORAM : Z. A. HAQ AND
                                          AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

                               DATE     : 26.02.2021.


 ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER: AMIT B. BORKAR, J.]





                                                      8A APL 269.15.jud(1).odt

1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the applicant has challenged registration of

the First Information Report dated 7th February 2015 bearing

Crime No.47/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections

420, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with

the non-applicant No.1-Police Station.

2. The First Information Report came to be registered

against the applicant with the accusations that the applicant and

other co-accused in connivance with each other prepared forged

documents in respect of plot bearing No. 12 and 22, Mouza Besa

in Khasra No.26/4 admeasuring 2700 sq.ft. and sold it to the

non-applicant No.2 by preparing forged sale deed and received

an amount of Rs.24,97,500/-.

3. It is alleged by the applicant that before registration of

the First Information Report, the non-applicant No.2 had already

filed criminal complaint No.209/2014 against the present

applicant. By suppressing the said fact, the non-applicant No.2

filed Criminal Writ Petition No.763/2014 seeking registration of

the offences against the applicant. It is further alleged that

8A APL 269.15.jud(1).odt

though the order in said Criminal Writ Petition was not passed,

the impugned First Information Report was registered against

the applicant.

4. The applicant has therefore, filed present application

challenging registration of the First Information Report. This

Court on 21st April, 2015 issued notice to the non-applicants and

in the meantime, it was directed that no coercive steps shall be

taken against the applicant. This Court on 7 th July 2015 admitted

the present application and continued interim relief in terms of

prayer clause (2) granting stay to further investigation in

relation to the First Information Report No.47/2015.

5. The non-applicant No.1 in pursuance notice of this

Court has filed reply and stated that from the allegations in the

First Information Report prima-facie ingredients of offences

alleged against the applicant are made out. The non-applicant

No.2 has also filed written submissions/reply and has stated that

from the allegations in the First Information Report offences

alleged against the applicant are made out.

8A APL 269.15.jud(1).odt

6. We have carefully considered the First Information

Report filed by the non-applicant No.2. Learned advocate for the

applicant submitted that once criminal complaint was filed by

the non-applicant No.2, the First Information Report making

same allegations could not have been registered. Learned

Advocate for the applicant could not point out any provision

which prohibits registration of the First Information Report,

when criminal complaint in relation to same allegation was

already filed. On the contrary, learned APP and learned

Advocate for the non-applicant No.2 have pointed out the

provision of Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

which lays down procedure when criminal complaint is pending

before the Competent Court and the First Information Report is

registered thereafter before the Court. The learned Advocate for

the applicant made submissions on merits but since the criminal

complaint filed by the non-applicant No.2 is pending, we are

afraid that we cannot adjudicate the submissions of the learned

Advocate for the applicant on merits of the case as same will

cause prejudice the non-applicant No.2.

8A APL 269.15.jud(1).odt

7. In the peculiar facts of the case, we are satisfied that

at this stage, it is not be proper to quash the First Information

Report, but parties will be at liberty to adopt appropriate

proceedings before the Magistrate permissible in accordance

with law. Therefore, at this stage, we are not inclined to quash

and set aside the First Information Report.

8. We therefore, pass the following order:-

(i) The Criminal Application No.269/2015 is dismissed.

Since the applicant was protected by order of this Court dated

7th July 2015 and same protection was in force till today, we

direct that no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicant

for the period of six weeks from today.

Rule is discharged in above terms.

                           JUDGE                              JUDGE
manisha