Bombay High Court
Rajesh Kaniram Jadhav vs The Police Station Officer, ... on 8 March, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
Judgment 1 apl766.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 766/2015
Rajesh Kaniram Jadhav,
Aged about 46 years,
Occ. Member of Zilla Parishad,
R/o. Chandhai, Post Kothari,
Tq. Mangrulpir, Dist. Washim
.... APPLICANT(S)
// VERSUS //
1] The Police Station Officer,
Mangrulpir, Tq. Mangrulpir,
Dist. Washim
2] The Collector, Washim,
Kata Road, Washim,
Tq. & Dist. Washim
3] Ramprasad Ramchandra Chavhan,
Age 45, Occ. Business
R/o. Chandhai, Tq. Mangrulpir,
Dist. Washim
.... NON-APPLICANT(S)
*******************************************************************
Shri P.S. Patil, Advocate for the applicant
Shri N.S. Rao, APP for the non-applicant nos. 1 & 2
Shri I.N. Fidvi, Adv h/f Shri Sudame, Adv for the non-applicant no. 3
*******************************************************************
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
MARCH 08, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)
1] Heard.
2] By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the applicant has challenged registration of F.I.R.
ANSARI
Judgment 2 apl766.15.odt
No. 3158/2015 registered with the non-applicant no. 1 - Police Station for
the offences punishable under Sections 171G, 177 and 181 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3] The first information report came to be registered against the
applicant with the accusations that though it is specifically provided in the
nomination form which requires the candidate to disclose the details of the
properties, the applicant had not disclosed the property in the name of his
wife bearing Gut No. 119. It is alleged that in the 7/12 extract produced
before the Collector, the property was shown to be mortgaged and this
information was intentionally suppressed from the Collector. It is further
stated in the first information report that the Collector, Washim has directed
the concerned Police Station to register the offences punishable under
Sections 171G, 177 and 181 of the Indian Penal Code.
4] The applicant has therefore challenged registration of the first
information report by filing the present application. This Court on
21/10/2015 issued notices to the non-applicants and by way of ad-interim
order, it was directed that the charge-sheet should not be filed against the
applicant. This Court on 08/01/2016 issued Rule and confirmed the interim
order granted earlier.
5] The non-applicant no. 1 in pursuance of the notice issued by
this Court has filed reply stating that in the enquiry before the Collector,
Washim, it was revealed that the property bearing Gut No. 119 belonging to
ANSARI
Judgment 3 apl766.15.odt
the wife of the applicant was mortgaged for Rs. 25,000/- and therefore the
Collector on 29/09/2015 passed an order directing the SDO, Mangrulpir to
register the offences punishable under Sections 171G, 177 and 181 of the
Indian Penal Code. On the basis of said information, Crime No. 3158/2015
was registered against the applicant.
6] Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the Collector
was exercising his power under the provisions of the Maharashtra Zilla
Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act (for short "the said Act") and the said
Act does not confer specific power on the Collector to pass an order directing
the police to register FIR. He submitted that in absence of the power
conferred on the Collector enabling him to pass such an order, the exercise of
power by the Collector was without authority.
7] We have considered the submission on behalf of the applicant.
In our view, it is for the Investigating Agency to be satisfied about the issue as
to whether the allegations in the first information report disclose cognizable
offence or not. Learned advocate for the applicant has not been able to point
out any provision under the provisions of the said Act which prohibits the
Collector from exercising such power. It is settled law that under the General
Criminal Law, any person can set the criminal law into motion. Since there is
no prohibition contained under the provisions of the said Act, prohibiting the
Collector to direct the police to register the first information report, in our
view, if the allegations alleged against the applicant disclose cognizable
offence, the Investigating Agency was justified in registering the offences
ANSARI
Judgment 4 apl766.15.odt
under Sections 171G, 177 and 181 of the Indian Penal Code. It is pertinent to
note that the offences which are alleged against the applicant are not under
the provisions of the said Act but are under the Indian Penal Code.
8] Therefore, the only issue which this Court is required to deal
with is whether the first information report discloses cognizable offence or
not. On overall consideration of the allegations in the first information report
and the reply filed by the non-applicant no. 1, we are prima-facie satisfied
that the allegations in the first information report disclose cognizable
offence. Whether the applicant can be said to be guilty of the offences alleged
against him is the matter of trial and for that purpose, the prosecution needs
to be given an opportunity to prove its case. At this stage, we cannot accept
the contention of the applicant that in absence of power on the Collector, the
offences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code could not have been
registered. We therefore find no merit in the contention raised on behalf of
the applicant.
9] Hence, the criminal application is dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE
ANSARI
