Rajendra S/O Balbhim Gaikwad And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3645 Bom

                                                             8 apl 201.15.jud.odt
                                              1/5



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

              CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.201 of 2015



  1.              Rajendra S/o Balbhim Gaikwad,
                  Aged about 45 years, Occupation-
                  Business;

  2.              Rashmi W/o Rajendra Gaikwad,
                  Aged about 40 years, Occupation-
                  Household,

                  Both applicant Nos.1 and 2 Residents
                  of Amraipura, Datta Chowk,
                  Yavatmal, Tahsil and District
                  Yavatmal                                      ....APPLICANTS


                                      // VERSUS //


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

  2.              Shri Ghanshyam Jeevanlal Kharpuriya,
                  Aged about 61 years, Occupation-
                  Retired, Resident of Plot No.19,
                  Prachantra Society, Manish Nagar,
                  Somalwada Nagpur                  .... NON-APPLICANTS

  Shri H.S. Chitaley, Advocate for the applicants.
  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.]





                                                            8 apl 201.15.jud.odt

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

Criminal Procedure, the applicants have challenged registration

of the First Information Report No.47/2015 dated 7 th February

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 applicants with the accusations that the applicants 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 applicants that before registration

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

already filed criminal complaint No.209/2014 against the

present applicants. By suppressing the said fact, the non-

applicant No.2 filed Criminal Writ Petition No.763/2014 seeking

8 apl 201.15.jud.odt

registration of the offences against the applicants. It is further

alleged that though the order in said Criminal Writ Petition was

not passed, the impugned First Information Report was

registered against the applicants.

4. The applicants have therefore, filed present

application challenging registration of the First Information

Report. This Court on 25th March 2015 issued notice to the non-

applicants and in the meantime, it was directed that no coercive

steps shall be taken against the applicants. This Court on

7th July 2015 admitted the present application and continued

interim relief 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 applicants 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 applicants are made out.

8 apl 201.15.jud.odt

6. We have carefully considered the First Information

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

applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants on merits of the case as same will

cause prejudice the non-applicant No.2.

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

8 apl 201.15.jud.odt

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.201/2015 is dismissed.

Since the applicants were 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 applicants

for the period of six weeks from today.

Rule is discharged in above terms.

                           JUDGE                             JUDGE
manisha