Bombay High Court
Rupesh Teksingh Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 2 March, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
11 apl 663.15 .jud.odt
1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.663 OF 2015
1. Rupesh Teksingh Shinde,
Aged 42 years, Occ. Service,
r/o 6/47, Raje Raghuji Nagar,
Nagpur ....APPLICANT
// VERSUS //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O. Sadar
Police Station, Nagpur.
2. The Administrative Officer,
Desk-13 O/o Principal Chief,
Conservator of Forests,
Maharashtra State, Civil Lines,
Nagpur .... NON-APPLICANTS
Shri P.R. Parsodkar, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for the non-applicant No.1/State.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z. A. HAQ AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 02.03.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER: AMIT B. BORKAR, J.]
1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the applicant has challenged registration of
the First Information Report No.125/2014 dated 25.03.2014
11 apl 663.15 .jud.odt
registered with the non-applicant No.1-Police Station for the
offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the
Indian Penal Code and consequent charge-sheet No.169/2015.
2. The First Information Report came to be lodged
against the applicant with the accusations that the caste
certificate submitted by the applicant for the purpose of getting
employment on the post of Clerk in category reserved for
Nomadic Tribe (Rajput Bhamta) was false certificate and
therefore, report was lodged with the non-applicant No.1-Police
Station, Sadar against the applicant. The applicant has filed
present application challenging registration of the First
Information Report.
3. This Court on 6th January 2016 issued notice to the non-
applicants. During pendency of present application, charge-sheet
came to be filed against the applicant and therefore, the
applicant amended present application to challenge filing of
charge-sheet. This Court on 8th June 2016 issued Rule and
granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (i-b).
11 apl 663.15 .jud.odt
4. Learned Advocate for the applicant has relied on judgment
of this Court in Criminal Application (APL) No.449 of 2014 in
the case of Ku. Waishali d/o Pandurang Nandanwar Vs. State of
Maharashtra and another wherein this Court relying on reported
judgment of this Court in the case of Vilas s/o Rambhau Majrikar
Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 4025
has taken a view that in view of the provisions Section 11 (2)
Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 filing of private complaint by
Scrutiny Committee or its authorized officer is contemplated and
lodging of First Information Report before the Police Authority is
not contemplated. In our view, the point involved in the present
application is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in
the case of Ku. Waishali d/o Pandurang Nandanwar (supra)
Vilas s/o Rambhau Majrikar (supra). In view of the judgment
cited above, the prosecution against the applicant cannot be
continued.
5. We therefore, pass the following order:-
(i) The First Information Report No.125/2014 and
consequent charge-sheet bearing No.169/2015 filed against the
applicant under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal
11 apl 663.15 .jud.odt
Code and proceedings of Regular Criminal Case No.3972/2015
pending on the file of 6th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur
are quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in above terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
manisha
