Harishankar S/O Ramniwas Sharma And ... vs State Of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps Tq Hingna ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1957 Bom

Bombay High Court

Harishankar S/O Ramniwas Sharma And ... vs State Of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps Tq Hingna ... on 23 February, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:3169-DB



                                                                              68 apl 1349.19.odt..odt
                                                     1


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

                         CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1349 OF 2019

                1.      Harishankar s/o Ramniwas Sharma                                  APPLICANTS
                        Aged about 56 years,
                        Occupation : Business,
                2.      Nandkishor s/o Ramniwas Sharma,
                        Aged about: 64 years,
                        Occupation: Business,
                        Both R/o Plot No.1, Pardhi Nagar,
                        Hingna Road, Nagpur, Tq. and Dist.
                        Nagpur

                                                 // V E R S U S //

                1.      The State of Maharashtra,
                        Through Police Station Officer,                              NON-APPLICANT
                         Police Station, Hingna, Tq. Hingna
                        Dist. Nagpur
                2.      Assistant Police Commissioner,
                        MIDC Division, Nagpur City, Nagpur
                        Tq. and Dist. Nagpur
                3.      Sushil s/o Sohanlal Agrawal,
                        Aged about 58 years, Occ. Business,
                        R/o 234, Middle Ring Road, East
                        Wardhman Nagar, Nagpur Tq. and
                        Dist. Nagpur
                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Mr. P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for the applicants.
                Mrs. Mrunal Barbade, APP for non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 /State.
                Mr. Dipesh Mehta, Advocate for non-applicant No.3.
                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.

                        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:- 13.02.2026
                        JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON:-23.02.2026

                  JUDGMENT :

68 apl 1349.19.odt..odt

1. Heard.

2. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal with the consent

of learned counsel for the parties.

3. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the First Information

Report in connection with crime No.115/2008 and consequent

proceeding arising out of the same supplementary charge-sheet

No.59-A/2012 dated 15.11.2019 registered with the non-applicant

No.1-Police Station Hingna under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120(b)

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC').

4. The facts leading to the filing of the FIR can be stated

as under:-

Non-applicant No.3 filed a FIR alleging that on

27.05.2008 Ms. Lakshmi Land Developers through co-accused

Vijay Naidu executed a sale deed of land admeasuring 1.40 acres

from Khasra No.46, 47 in Mauza Nildoh, Tahsil Hingna. On

28.12.1998 the said Vijay Naidu on behalf of M/s Lakshmi Land

Developers had executed another sale deed of land admeasuring 68 apl 1349.19.odt..odt

1.75 acres from Khasra Nos.46, 47 Mauza Nildoh Tah. Hingna in

the office of Sub Registrar Nagpur Gramin-10. In both the sale

deeds it was not mentioned as to how much of the land from

Khasra Nos.46 and 47 are sold. Due to this discrepancy in the sale

deed there were no mutation entries made in the revenue record.

However in connivance with the revenue authority co accused

Vijay Naidu had recorded mutation entries of Khasra No.46 and

therefore, in government record the area of 0.86 acres which was

originally the area of Khasra No.47 was shown to be much larger.

It is further alleged by the complainant that the accused persons

had conspired and to cause the loss to the present complainant

had forged the documents such as no objection certificate, sale

deeds, 7/12 extracts as well as government measurement (K) part

record and said documents were used by some of the co-accused

persons against him in proceeding before Tahsildar in case

No.RDS-64/2007-08.

5. On the basis of the said report crime was registered

and the investigation started rotating. The Investigating Agency

has recorded statements of the complainant and other witnesses

and seized the necessary documents and filed charge-sheet.

68 apl 1349.19.odt..odt

6. After filing of the charge-sheet, the supplementary

statements were also recorded in which it revealed that present

applicants had assisted co accused persons in the present crime.

The forged map was also seized from the position of the present

applicants and it revealed that there is an alteration in the TIP on

map. The present applicants conspired with the Land Record

Officer namely Smt. Vijaya Thakare and the said forged

documents were prepared. Considering the role of the present

applicants, the supplementary charge-sheet was filed in the matter

by the Investigating Officer.

7. Being aggrieved with the filing of the said

supplementary charge-sheet the applicants approached this Court

on contention that initially the statements of the present

applicants were recorded and they were made as witnesses

merely because these applicants specially applicant No.2 deposed

against the complainant in the civil proceeding and subsequently

he was implicated in the alleged offence on the false and baseless

allegations. He submitted that K Patrak found in the house of

present applicants and only on this basis he was implicated in the 68 apl 1349.19.odt..odt

alleged offence. He submitted that the entire transactions of the

year 2008 and till 2019 there was no communication to the

present applicants. No permission was obtained as to the further

investigation by the Investigating Agency and suddenly in the year

2019 they were made as an accused. He submitted that

considering the inordinate delay in investigation and making an

allegation against present applicants which is more than 10 years.

Thus, there is a gap of more than 10 years between initial

investigation and filing of the supplementary charge-sheet against

the present applicants. For all above these grounds the application

deserves to be allowed.

In support of his contention he placed reliance on

Pramod Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 156 and Rampal Gautam and

Ors. vs. The State by Mahadevapura Police Station and another

reported in 2025(2) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 654.

8. Per contra learned APP strongly opposed said

contention and submitted that in view of Section 173 (8)

Investigating Agency has carried out further investigation and

during further investigation involvement of the present applicants 68 apl 1349.19.odt..odt

in forgery of the K Patrak was found. She submitted that there

was no reason on finding said K Patrak in the house of the present

applicants if they were not involved. She submitted that at this

stage, there is sufficient material to connect the present applicants

with the alleged offence and therefore, merely on the technical

grounds the application of the present applicants shall not be

entertained and deserves to be rejected.

9. Mr. Dipesh Mehta, learned counsel for the

complainant invited my attention towards the K Patrak and

submitted that on perusal of the map which is collected during

investigation wherein note is shown as the boundary shown in

the sale deed regarding Gat Nos.46, 47, and 48 is not matching

with the revenue record and therefore, the boundaries are not

confirmed. The said note is missing from the copy of the K Patrak

which is seized from the house of the present applicants. As far as

delay is concerned, he invited my attention towards various

communications and submitted that since 2018 the complainant is

pursuing his cause with the police, but police have not taken

action and as such it is a default on the part of the police. The

applicants who are the accused cannot be benefited. He invited 68 apl 1349.19.odt..odt

my attention towards various communications which are

addressed to Investigating Agency and submitted that these

applications show that present complainant approached to the

Superior Officers of the Police and thereafter further investigation

was carried out. Therefore, delay is not fatal to the prosecution.

Learned APP placed reliance on Pramod Kumar and

Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradeshh and ors. in SLP No.350/2024

decided on 04.02.2026. Learned APP placed reliance on the

decision of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.928/2024

decided on 17.11.2025.

10. On going through the entire rival contentions of the

learned counsel for the applicants and non-applicants it revealed

that entire dispute revolved around the two sale deeds which are

executed by M/s Lakshmi Land Developers wherein the area

which was sold is not mentioned in the sale deeds. The recitals of

the FIR and the investigation papers show that Vijay Naidu one of

the accused executed sale deed of land admeasuring 1.40 acres

from Khasra Nos. 46 and 47 Mauza Nildoh and another sale deed

was executed by him on 28.12.1998. In both the sale deeds, it was 68 apl 1349.19.odt..odt

not mentioned as to how much area of Khasra No.46 and how

much area of Khasra No.47 was sold out. Due to said

discrepancies initially no mutation entry was carried out. The K

patrak i.e. map also shows the note mentioned on the said map

that boundaries could not be fixed as the exact area of Khasra

No.46, 47 and 48 is not mentioned in the sale deed. The said

maps are at page No.272 and 273 of the record of the present

application. The map which is on the page No.272 i.e. the extract

of the K patrak shows that note is mentioned that boundaries

could not be fixed and note is written as " सदर प्रकरण गट नं. 46 47 48

मध्ये अर्जदाराने दाखवलेली वहिवाटीची हद्द व नकाशाची हद्द मिळत नाही तफावत असल्याने हद्द

कायम करून अनिवार्य".

The said note is missing on extract of K patrak which is

seized from the house of the present applicants and which is at

page No.272 of the record along with application. The

supplementary investigation carried out by Investigating Agency

also shows that during investigation it revealed that both the

applicants after entering into conspiracy with co-accused applied

for a certified copy of the extract of K patrak and with the

connivance of land revenue office employees got prepared copy of

K patrak by deleting note which is found on the original K patrak 68 apl 1349.19.odt..odt

and thereafter committed an offence of forgery. The statements of

revenue officers are also recorded to that extent. Thus, as far as

involvement of the present applicants in the offence of forgery is

concerned, is apparent from the record.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on

the decision of Rampal Gautam and ors. Vs. The State By

Mahadevapura Police Station and another referred supra wherein

Hon'ble Apex Court held that direction for further investigation

under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. should not be issued at a highly

belated stage without sufficient jurisdiction.

12. The paragraph No.12 of the said judgment itself

shows that it is observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that at the out set,

we may record that a direction to conduct further investigation

even after filing of the charge-sheet and commencement of the

trial is permissible in law as has been held by a catena of

judgments of this Court. Reference in this regard may be made to

Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat and Others

reported (2004) 5 SCC 347 wherein, this Court observed that the

prime consideration for directing further investigation is to arrive 68 apl 1349.19.odt..odt

at the truth and to do real substantial justice. The Court further

observed that further investigation and re-investigation stand

altogether on a different footing. Even de hors any direction form

the Court, it is open to the police to conduct a proper investigation

notwithstanding the fact that the Court has already taken

cognizance on the strength of a police report submitted earlier.

13. In the case of Pramod Kumar and ors. vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh and Others referred supra on which learned

counsel for the applicants placed reliance wherein also it is held

that the issue regarding the procedure to be followed for directing

further investigation in a case has been dealt by this Court in the

case of Vinay Tyagi Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali Alias Deepak and others ,

reported in (2013) 5 SCC 762 wherein this Court while dealing

with the contours of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. relating to further

investigation, propounded that the police ought to follow the

procedure of seeking permission from the Court to conduct

"further investigation" and file a supplementary charge-sheet.

Thus, in both the judgments the issue regarding further

investigation is considered and it is specially held that further

investigation by the police is not barred. In a recent judgment of 68 apl 1349.19.odt..odt

Pramod Kumar and Ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. (supra)

relied upon by learned APP wherein while analysing the power of

investigating agency the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "the

power of the Investigating Agency to order further investigation

in any criminal case is derived from the aegis of Section 173(8) of

CrPC (Section 193(9) BNSS)." which reproduced as follows:-

"173. (8)

(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under Sub-Section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding, such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of Sub-Sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under Sub-section(2)".

14. "Thus, the powers of the investigating agency for

further investigation are not in dispute herein. However, what

catches attention here and which is also the crux of the

controversy in the present case, is which authority can pass an

order directing investigating agency to undertake further

investigation under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. Thus, in the judgment

also the power of the investigating agency for further investigation 68 apl 1349.19.odt..odt

is recognised and it is held that it is not in dispute. Thus, the right

of Investigating Officer to file supplementary charge-sheet cannot

be curtailed. Further investigation is the continuation of the

earlier investigation. Even if it is considered that supplementary

charge-sheet was filed at belated stage, that by itself is not

sufficient to quash the order granting permission to file

supplementary charge-sheet. The observation of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Vinay Tyagi vs Irshad Ali @ Deepak & Ors

reported in 2013 (5) SCC 762 wherein paragraph 49 which reads

as under:-

"49. Now, we may examine another significant aspect which is how the provisions of Section 173(8) have been understood and applied by the courts and investigating agencies. It is true that though there is no specific requirement in the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Code to conduct "further investigation"

or file supplementary report with the leave of the court, the investigating agencies have not only understood but also adopted it as a legal practice to seek permission of the courts to conduct "further investigation" and file "supplementary report" with the leave of the court, The courts, in some of the decisions, have also taken a similar view. The requirement of seeking prior leave of the court to conduct "further investigation" and/or to file a "supplementary report" will have to be read into, and is a necessary implication of the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Code. The doctrine of contemporanea exposition will fully come to the aid of such interpretation as the matters which are understood 68 apl 1349.19.odt..odt

and implemented for a long time, and such practice that is supported by law should be accepted as part of the interpretative process."

15. In the case of State Through Central Bureau of

Investigation vs. Hemendhra Reddy and Another reported in

(2023) 16 SCC 779 wherein also it is held that further

investigation de horse any direction from the Court, paragraph

Nos.60 to 68 are reproduced as under:-

"60. This Court in Hasanbhai held thus: (SCC pp. 350-51, paras 12-13) "12. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code permits further investigation, and even dehors any direction from the court as such, it is open to the police to conduct proper investigation, even after the court took cognizance of any offence on the strength of a police report earlier submitted. All the more so, if as in this case, the Head of the Police Department also was not satisfied of the propriety or the manner and nature of investigation already conducted.

13. In Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479 : AIR 1979 SC 1791] it was observed by this Court that further investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because cognizance has been taken by the court. When defective investigation comes to light during course of trial, it may be cured by further investigation, if circumstances so permitted. It would ordinarily be desirable and all the more so in this 68 apl 1349.19.odt..odt

case, that the police should inform the court and seek formal permission to make further investigation when fresh facts come to light instead of being silent over the matter keeping in view only the need for an early trial since an effective trial for real or actual offences found during course of proper investigation is as much relevant, desirable and necessary as an expeditious disposal of the matter by the courts. In view of the aforesaid position in law, if there is necessity for further investigation, the same can certainly be done as prescribed by law. The mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand in the way of further investigation if that would help the court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial as well as effective justice."

61. In Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration) reported in (1979) 2 SCC 322, this Court held thus:

"21. As observed by us earlier, there was no provision in the CrPC, 1898 which, expressly or by necessary implication, barred the right of the police to further investigate after cognizance of the case had been taken by the Magistrate. Neither Section 173 nor Section 190 lead us to hold that the power of the police to further investigate was exhausted by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence. Practice, convenience and preponderance of authority, permitted repeated investigations on discovery of fresh facts. In our view, notwithstanding that a 68 apl 1349.19.odt..odt

Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence upon a police report submitted under Section 173 of the 1898 Code, the right of the police to further investigate was not exhausted and the police could exercise such right as often as necessary when fresh information came to light. Where the police desired to make a further investigation, the police could express their regard and respect for the court by seeking its formal permission to make further investigation."

62. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.S. Peter reported in (2008) 2 SCC 383, this Court held thus:

"9. Indisputably, the law does not mandate taking of prior permission from the Magistrate for further investigation. Carrying out of a further investigation even after filing of the charge-sheet is a statutory right of the police. A distinction also exists between further investigation and reinvestigation. Whereas reinvestigation without prior permission is necessarily forbidden, further investigation is not."

63. In Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2009) 1 SCC 441, this Court held as follows:

"68. An order of further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code by the State in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 36 thereof stands on a different footing. The power of the investigating officer to make further investigation in exercise of its statutory jurisdiction under Section 173(8) of the 68 apl 1349.19.odt..odt

Code and at the instance of the State having regard to Section 36 thereof read with Section 3 of the Police Act, 1861 should be considered in different contexts. Section 173(8) of the Code is an enabling provision. Only when cognizance of an offence is taken, the learned Magistrate may have some say. But, the restriction imposed by judicial legislation is merely for the purpose of upholding the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. It is one thing to say that the court will have supervisory jurisdiction to ensure a fair investigation, as has been observed by a Bench of this Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. [(2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440], correctness whereof is open to question, but it is another thing to say that the investigating officer will have no jurisdiction whatsoever to make any further investigation without the express permission of the Magistrate."

64. In Vinay Tyagi (supra), it was held that "further investigation" in terms of Section 173(8) of the CrPC can be made in a situation where the investigating officer obtains further oral or documentary evidence after the final report has been filed before the Court. The report on such further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC can be termed as a supplementary report.

65. In Vinay Tyagi (supra), it was held that: (SCC p.790, para 40) 68 apl 1349.19.odt..odt

"40.2. A Magistrate has the power to direct "further investigation" after filing of a police report in terms of Section 173(6) of the Code.

40.4. Neither the scheme of the Code nor any specific provision therein bars exercise of such jurisdiction by the Magistrate. The language of Section 173(2) cannot be construed so restrictively as to deprive the Magistrate of such powers particularly in face of the provisions of Section 156(3) and the language of Section 173(8) itself. In fact, such power would have to be read into the language of Section 173(8). 40.5. The Code is a procedural document, thus, it must receive a construction which would advance the cause of justice and legislative object sought to be achieved. It does not stand to reason that the legislature provided power of further investigation to the police even after filing a report, but intended to curtail the power of the court to the extent that even where the facts of the case and the ends of justice demand, the court can still not direct the investigating agency to conduct further investigation which it could do on its own.

40.6 It has been a procedure of propriety that the police has to seek permission of the court to continue "further investigation" and file supplementary chargesheet..."

66. In Vinubhai (supra); a three-Judge Bench of this Court has endeavoured to lay at rest the controversy 68 apl 1349.19.odt..odt

enveloping the evasive issue of further investigation directed by the Magistrate. This Court, speaking through Justice R.F. Nariman, has laid down at Para 42 that: (SCC p. 39) "42. ... To say that a fair and just investigation would lead to the conclusion that the police retain the power, subject, of course, to the Magistrate's nod under Section 173(8) to further investigate an offence till charges are framed, but that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly ceases midway through the pre-trial proceedings, would amount to a travesty of justice, as certain cases may cry out for further investigation so that an innocent person is not wrongly arraigned as an accused or that a prima facie guilty person is not so left out. There is no warrant for such a narrow and restrictive view of the powers of the Magistrate, particularly when such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h) and Section 173(8) CrPC, as has been noticed hereinabove, and would be available at all stages of the progress of a criminal case before the trial actually commences. It would also be in the interest of justice that this power be exercised suo motu by the Magistrate himself, depending on the facts of each case. Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the learned Magistrate who will exercise such discretion on the facts of each case and in accordance with law."

68 apl 1349.19.odt..odt

It was also clarified that: (Vinubhai case, SCC p.21, para 28) "28. The "investigation" spoken of in Section 156(3) would embrace the entire process, which begins with the collection of evidence and continues until charges are framed by the Court, at which stage the trial can be said to have begun.".

67. Thus, this Court, in conclusion, observed that, "27. ... when Section 156(3) states that a Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order " such an investigation", such Magistrate may also order further investigation under Section 173(8), regard being had to the definition of "investigation" contained in Section 2(h)."

68. Thus, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the various decisions cited hereinabove, it is well settled that sub section (8) of Section 173 of the CrPC permits further investigation, and even dehors any direction from the court, it is open to the police to conduct proper investigation, even after the court takes cognizance of any offence on the strength of a police report earlier submitted.

The same view is reiterated in the case of Bohatie Devi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives VS. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2023) 16 SCC 349.

68. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the aforesaid issue it can be concluded that there is no specific requirement under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. to obtain leave of 68 apl 1349.19.odt..odt

the Court for conducting further investigation. However it is allowing standing practice and procedure which is to be followed to obtain a permission of the Court to continue further investigation and file supplementary charge-sheet. Further merely absence of the permission of the Court will not by its vitiated the filing of the supplementary charge-sheet as per settled position of law. It is well settled that it is right of the Investigating Officer to further investigate in respect of the offence even after a report under Section 2 of Section 173 Cr.P.C. and prior role of the Magistrate if not required.

16. Thus, from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court on the aforesaid issue, it is concluded that though there is

no specific requirement under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. to

obtain leave of the Court for conducting further investigation,

however, it is a matter of long-standing practice and a procedure

to seek permission of the Court to continue further investigation

and file supplementary charge-sheet. However, merely not

obtaining leave of the Court will not, by itself, vitiate the filing of

the supplementary charge-sheet, as it is a settled position of law. It

is well settled that it is a right of the Investigating Officer to

further investigate in respect of offence even after a report under 68 apl 1349.19.odt..odt

Sub-Section (2) of Section 173 of Cr.PC. and prior approval of the

Magistrate is not required.

17. As observed earlier, it could be seen from the

supplementary charge-sheet that the Investigating Officer has

seized the forged document from the house of the present

applicants, recorded the statements of the revenue authorities

wherein the involvement of the present applicants revealed. At

this stage, there is sufficient material to connect the present

applicants with the alleged offence. The material collected during

the investigation if examined in the light of the parameters laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana

and others vs. Bhajanlal and others reported in 1992 Supp(1)

Supreme Court Cases 335, where it is stated as under:-

" (a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(b) where the allegations in the First information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

68 apl 1349.19.odt..odt

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

admittedly there is prima-facie material to connect

the present applicants with the alleged offence.

19. As far as delay which is raised by the applicant is

concerned, which is not fatal in the light of the fact that non-

applicant No.2 was pursuing the matter. He approached to the

Superior Officers and Superior Officers taken the cognizance of his

grievance and thereafter further investigation was carried out.

68 apl 1349.19.odt..odt

Thus, merely because there is delay in filing the supplementary

charge-sheet against the present applicants would not be sufficient

to raise doubt as to the investigation. Delay is explained by the

complainant. If the delay is reasonably explained, no adverse

inference can be drawn but failure to explain the delay would

require the Court to minutely examined prosecution version for

ensuring itself as to whether any innocent person has been

implicated in the crime or not.

20. In the present case, the non-applicant No.2 has very

well explained the said delay and as it is settled law that

inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for quashing of

criminal complaint in such a cases, unexplained inordinate delay

of such length must be taken into consideration as a very crucial

factor.

21. As already observed that various communications on

record by the complainant with the superior authorities of the

police is sufficient to infer that there is anexplanation of delay by

the complainant.

68 apl 1349.19.odt..odt

22. It is needless to mention that at this juncture, the trial

Court shall not influence by the observation of this Court while

conducting the trial. It could be seen from the supplementary

charge-sheet that the Investigating Officer has recorded the

statements of the various witnesses, seizure of the documents, the

statements of the revenue authorities and documents i.e. copies of

the K patrak on page No.272-273 show the difference and prima-

facie sufficient to say that the involvement of the present

applicants in forgery revealed. In view of that, application

deserves to be rejected.

24. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:-

ORDER

The application is rejected.

The criminal application stands disposed of

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)

manisha

Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 24/02/2026 11:15:15