Nitin S/O Vasantrao Mehetre vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 12672 Bom

                                               1                                11-apl-908-21j.odt



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 908 OF 2021

  Nitin S/o. Vasantrao Mehetre,
  Aged about 41 years, Occ. Service,
  R/o. Old Govt. Hospital, Ward No. 13,
  Chikhali, Tah. Chikhali,
  Dist. Buldhana.                                                           . . . APPLICANT

                         ...V E R S U S..

  1. State of Maharashtra through
     Police Station Officer,
     Police Station, Chikhali,
     Tah. Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana.

  2. Resident Naib Tahsildar, Chikhali,
     Office at Tehsil Office Chikhali,
     Dist. Buldhana                                                 . . NON-APPLICANTS

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri R. S. Kalangiwale, Advocate for applicant.
 Shri V. A. Thakre, A.P.P. for non-applicants/State.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  CORAM :- V. M. DESHPANDE AND
                           AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED :- 06.09.2021

JUDGMENT (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) :-

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the parties.

2 11-apl-908-21j.odt

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

Criminal Procedure, the applicant has challenged registration of First

Information Report (FIR) No. 63/2021 registered with the non-

applicant no. 1- Police Station for the offence punishable under

Sections 468, 471, 473, 476 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The FIR came to be registered against the applicant with

accusations that the Naib Tahsildar, Chikhali filed the complaint on

06.02.2021, as per directions of the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO),

Buldhana dated 05.02.2021, alleging that permission/order of the

SDO, Buldhana dated 16.06.2020 was forged and fabricated and by

using the said fabricated document, the sale deed bearing registration

No. 3113/2020 and 3114/2020 were registered. It is alleged in the

FIR that the applicant and another person has helped the co-accused to

prepare the forged document i.e. order dated 16.06.2020 bearing

order No. RTS-59/46/2020. It is alleged that the order of the SDO has

been forged by preparing and affixing duplicate seal and signature of

the SDO with a view to get benefit from the Sale Deed executed in

favour of the purchaser and therefore, it is necessary to investigate the

role of the persons, who have prepared the forged order and seal and

put forged signature of the SDO on the said forged order.

3 11-apl-908-21j.odt

5. The applicant has therefore challenged registration of the

FIR by filing the present application.

6. On careful consideration of the FIR, it appears that there is

specific allegation against the applicant that the applicant alongwith

another accused has helped other co-accused to prepare forged order

in the name of the SDO. From the averment in the application, it

appears that the applicant is working as Computer Instructor in School

at Chandhai, Tah. Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana. We have carefully

considered the allegation in the FIR and we are satisfied that the

allegations against the applicant are serious in nature. We are prima

facie satisfied that the allegations against the applicant fulfills the

ingredients of the offence alleged against the applicant.

7. In our opinion, the Investigating Agency needs to be give

opportunity to investigate into the allegation against the applicant.

This is not a case where the investigation can be throttled at its

threshold. For quashing the FIR at its threshold, it is necessary that the

allegations incorporated in the FIR, on the face of it, does not fulfill

ingredients of the offence alleged against the applicant. In our

considered opinion, it is not possible to conclude that the allegations

made against the applicant, prima facie, does not constitute offence

punishable under Sections 468, 471, 473, 476 r/w. Section 34 of the

4 11-apl-908-21j.odt

Indian Penal Code. Taking into consideration the overall view of the

matter, we are satisfied that this not a fit case to exercise powers under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

8. The application is therefore dismissed. Rule discharged.

                               JUDGE                                  JUDGE




RR Jaiswal