1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. ________ OF 2018

In the matter of petition under Section 482

of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
&
In the matter of quashing of FIR No.75 of
2010 dated 02.05.2010 u/s 420, 468 & 471
of the Indian Penal Code registered by
Rampur Police Station, Tehsil Rampur ,
District Wardha, Maharashtra.

IN THE MATTER OF:

APPLICANT : ABC S/o XYZ, Aged about 37 Years, R/o

District Wardha – 442202

Versus
RESPONDENT : The State of Maharashtra,
NO.1 Through the Investigation Officer/ Police
Inspector Rampur Police Station, Tehsil
Rampur , District Wardha – 442202

RESPONDENT MNO S/o PQR,

NO.2 District Wardha – 442202

CRIMINAL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 FOR
 2

QUASHING FIR NO. 75 OF 2010 DATED 02.05.2010

UNDER SECTION 420, 468 & 471 OF THE INDIAN
PENAL CODE REGISTERED BY RAMPUR POLICE
STATION, TEHSIL RAMPUR , DISTRICT WARDHA

To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice,
Of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
And His Companion Puisne Justices of the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court At Nagpur Bench

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

The applicant most humbly and respectfully submits

as under:-

THAT, the present Criminal Application has been filed

by the Applicant under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 for quashing of false & frivolous F.I.R. No.75 of
2010 dated 02.05.2010 registered by the Respondent upon
of assertion of the Complainant namely MNO after delay of
143 days of date of incident before the Rampur Police
Station, Tehsil Rampur, District Wardha under Section 420,
468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After reading to
contents of F.I.R. No.75 of 2010 dated 02.05.2010 before
the Rampur Police Station, Tehsil Rampur , District Wardha
no offence whatsoever under Section 420, 468 & 471 of IPC
has been made and same is nothing but abuse of process of
law and investigation thereby allegation against the
Applicant was made with ulterior motive to cause
unnecessary harassment to the Applicant. It is pertinent to
note that neither any explanation has been given for filing
F.I.R. after delay of 143 days nor involvement of the
Applicant has been mentioned in the F.I.R. No.75 of 2010
dated 02.05.2010. The true copy of impugned F.I.R. No. 75
of 2010 dated 02.05.2010 before the Rampur Police
 3

Station, Tehsil Rampur , District Wardha under Section 420,

468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is annexed
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-1.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts which give rise to this Application for filing
quashing of F.I.R. are as follows:

1) THAT, the Applicant is law abiding and dutiful citizen

of India and resident of Tehsil Rampur, District
Wardha, which give him locus to beseech kind
indulgence of this Hon’ble Bench of this Hon’ble Court
to quash F.I.R. No. 75 of 2010 dated 02.05.2010
before the Rampur Police Station, Tehsil Rampur ,
District Wardha under Section 420, 468 & 471 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2) THAT, the present applicant seeks to invoke the

inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 to
quash F.I.R. No. 75 of 2010 dated 02.05.2010 before
the Rampur Police Station, Tehsil Rampur , District
Wardha under Section 420, 468 & 471 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860. It is pertinent to mention that
name of the Applicant has not been mentioned by the
Complainant MNO. The name of the present applicant
during investigation was taken just to harass the
applicant and same is without any lawful or factual
basis as well as allegations leveled against the
applicant is completely wrong and imaginary.

3) THAT, the said F.I.R. No. 75 of 2010 dated

02.05.2010 before the Rampur Police Station, Tehsil
Rampur , District Wardha under Section 420, 468 &
471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was filed by the
Complainant namely PQR against his nephew BCD
 4

alleging that accused namely BCD made forged

document as well as taken undue advantage of
blindness and disability of the Complainant and got
property of the Complainant on his own name. It is
specifically submitted that name of the Applicant not
even mentioned in the said F.I.R. No. 75 of 2010
dated 02.05.2010. Further, the date of occurrence of
crime as mentioned by the Complainant I.e. PQR is
10.12.2018. Thus, the F.I.R. No. 75 of 2010 before
the Rampur Police Station, Tehsil Rampur , District
Wardha was filed after delay of 143 days on dated
02.05.2010.

4) THAT, the Applicant was arrested by the Respondent

Rampur Police Station on 16.12.2020, which is after
19 months from date of filing of the said impugned
F.I.R. NO. 75 OF 2010. The Respondent Rampur
Police Station submitted M.C.R. form before the
Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tehsil
Rampur , District Wardha vide dated 17.12.2020,
where the Applicant made accused by the Respondent
Rampur Police Station is mentioned. It is submitted
that the said M.C.R. Form dated 17.12.2020 does not
specify role of the Applicant in the alleged crime. It
clearly appears that the Applicant has been
unnecessarily made party to Crime No.75 of 2010.
The true copy of M.C.R. form before the Learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tehsil Rampur , District
Wardha dated 17.12.2020 is annexed as ANNEXURE
A-2.

5) THAT, the Applicant ABC was released on bail by the

Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tehsil
 5

Rampur , District Wardha vide Bail Application dated

17.12.2020 and Order dated 18.10.2010. The true
copies of Bail Application of the Applicant ABC along
with true copy of order dated 18.10.2010 passed by
the the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tehsil
Rampur , District Wardha are collectively annexed as
ANNEXURE A-3. It is pertinent to mention that mere
perusal of the Order dated 18.10.2010 passed by the
Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tehsil
Rampur , District Wardha it is prima facie clears that
no specific allegations are shown against the Applicant
ABC and the connection of the applicant to the said
crime has not been mentioned anywhere, which prima
facie confers that the Applicant has no involvement in
the crime in view of F.I.R. No.75 of 2010.

6) THAT, the Respondent Rampur Police Station claims

that the Applicant has handwritten the alleged
document mentioned in F.I.R. No.75 of 2010, which
was used to cheat the Complainant MNO by his
nephew. It is submitted that the applicant ABC was
working as “Peon” (Sipoay) in Gram Panchayat Bore
Gaon Rampur , Tehsil Ashit, District Wardha and upon
the instructions of the then Sarpanch, the then Up-
Sarpanch, the Applicant ABC acted as document writer

i.e. as Arjanwis (अर्जनवीस). It is submitted that there is

no role of the Applicant than being the document

writer upon the instructions of his superiors i.e. the
then Sarpanch, the then Up-Sarpanch. Thus, the
F.I.R. No. 75 of 2010 dated 02.05.2010 before the
Rampur Police Station, Tehsil Rampur , District
Wardha under Section 420, 468 & 471 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 against the Applicant are bogus,
sham based on false, frivolous allegations and the
 6

consequential proceedings initiated against the

Applicant thereby is nothing but abuse of process of
law.

Hence, the said F.I.R. No. 75 of 2010 dated

02.05.2010 before the Rampur Police Station, Tehsil
Rampur , District Wardha under Section 420, 468 & 471 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with consequential
proceedings need to be quashed on the grounds mentioned
hereunder:

GROUNDS

The Applicant is beseeching kind indulgence this

Hon’ble Court for quashing F.I.R. No. 75 of 2010 dated
02.05.2010 before the Rampur Police Station, Tehsil
Rampur , District Wardha under Section 420, 468 & 471 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with consequential
proceedings, therefore the Applicant is approaching this
Hon’ble Court on following grounds-

A. BECAUSE, it is respectfully submitted that there is no

specific allegation against the Applicant in F.I.R. No.
75 of 2010 dated 02.05.2010 before the Rampur
Police Station, Tehsil Rampur , District Wardha under
Section 420, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 by the Complainant and investigation thereby is
baseless and vague. It is pertinent to note that the
F.I.R. No. 75 of 2010 dated 02.05.2010 does not
disclose any offence or crime committed by the
present applicant, neither explains role of the
applicant in the investigation itself.

B. BECAUSE, the Respondent Rampur Police Station

claims that the Applicant has handwritten the alleged
document mentioned in F.I.R. No.75 of 2010, which
 7

was used to cheat the Complainant MNOby his

nephew Anil Zare. It is submitted that the applicant
ABC was working as “Peon” (Sipoay) in Gram
Panchayat Bore Gaon Rampur , Tehsil Ashit, District
Wardha and upon the instructions of the then
Sarpanch namely, the then Up-Sarpanch, the
Applicant ABC acted as document writer i.e. as

Arjanwis (अर्जनवीस). It is submitted that there is no

role of the Applicant than being the document writer

upon the instructions of his superiors i.e. the then
Sarpanch namely, the then Up-Sarpanch. It is
submitted that the then Sarpanch namely, the then
Up-Sarpanch was not arrayed as accused by the
Investigation Officer of Rampur Police Station. Even,
mere perusal of the Order dated 18.10.2010 passed
by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tehsil
Rampur , District Wardha it is prima facie clears that
no specific allegations are shown against the Applicant
ABC and the connection of the applicant to the said
crime has not been mentioned anywhere, which prima
facie confers that the Applicant has no involvement in
the crime in view of F.I.R. No.75 of 2010.

C. BECAUSE, considering, the scope of the offences

under Section 420, 468 & 471 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 and the allegation against the Applicant in an
investigation of F.I.R. No. 75/19 dated 02.05.2010,
the Applicant do not have any remote intention to
commit any of the aforesaid crime as the present
Applicant does not have or never had any concern
with the property of the Complainant MNO. Prima
facie it appears from record of the F.I.R. No. 75/19
dated 02.05.2010 and MCR Form of the applicant, the
incident which occurred in 10.12.2018 with the
 8

Complainant MNOis nothing but the civil dispute. The

alleged document mentioned in in F.I.R. No.75 of
2010 claimed to be handwritten of the applicant is not
false or forged document per se. It is submitted that
for making any false/ forged document to attract
Section 468 & Section 471 the elements of Section
464 is necessary. However, it appears from bear
perusal of the F.I.R. No.75/2010 and statement of the
Complainant MNO that the other accused taken undue
advantage of disability and blindness of the
Complainant MNO by causing inducement and got
property of the Complainant on his own name which
lead to cheating. Thus, the element of forgery or
forged document is clearly absent.

D. BECAUSE, the facts constituted by investigation and

the impugned F.I.R. No. 75 of 2010 dated 02.05.2010
before the Rampur Police Station, Tehsil Rampur ,
District Wardha under Section 420, 468 & 471 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, it appears that the complete
allegations are of civil nature and prosecution does not
warranted. Keeping in view the strict interpretation of
penal statute i.e., referring to rule of interpretation
wherein natural inferences are preferred, it is
observed that a charge of forgery cannot be imposed
on a person who is not the maker of the same. It is
submitted that as held in plethora of cases, making of
a document is different than causing it to be made. As
Explanation 2 to Section 464 further clarifies that, for
constituting an offence under Section 464 it is
imperative that a false document is made and the
accused person is the maker of the same, otherwise
the accused person is not liable for the offence of
forgery. It submitted that mere perusal of the F.I.R.
No.75/2010 and statement of the Complainant MNO
 9

that the other accused taken undue advantage of

disability and blindness of the Complainant MNO by
causing inducement and got property of the
Complainant on his own name which lead to cheating.
It already clear that the applicant is not maker of the
document but only handwritten the alleged document
while discharging public duty as Peon in Gram
Panchayat and same upon the instructions of the then
Sarpanch and Up Sarpanch. Thus, it is clear that the
applicant has no nexus with alleged crime in F.I.R.
No.75 of 2010.

E. BECAUSE, it is an established position in law that

Courts can exercise inherent jurisdiction under section
482 of the Cr.P.C. and pass such orders as may be
necessary, to prevent abuse of the process of Court
and/or to secure the ends of justice. In State of
Haryana v Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
(hereinafter referred to as “Bhajan Lal)”, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that one of the categories of
cases fit for the exercise of powers under section 482,
Cr.P.C. is: “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.”(emphasis supplied).

F. BECAUSE, the Complainant namely MNO after made

his statement before the Police Station Rampur .
Thus, the chances of conviction on the basis of
statement recorded before the Police Station Rampur
is very remote. Thus, it is submitted that in the light
of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is clear
that no purpose would be served by having the case
against the Applicant; In Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao
Scindia v Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, AIR 1988
 10

SC 709, Hon’ble Supreme Court Court held that “it is

also for the court to take into consideration any
special features which appear in a particular case to
consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of
justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so
on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any
oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court
chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and,
therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be
served by allowing a criminal prosecution to
continue, the court may while taking into
consideration the special facts of a case also
quash the proceeding even though it may be at a
preliminary stage.”

7) THAT, the Applicant submits that the Applicant

resides at addresses given in the cause title of the
present Application and the FIR sought to be quashed
is filed at the Rampur Police Station, Tehsil Rampur ,
District Wardha. Therefore this Bench of this Hon’ble
High Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the writ
petition.

8) THAT, the applicant further states that he has not

filed any other Writ Petition, Application, Appeal or
Revision before this Hon’ble Court or Supreme Court
of India or in any other Court pertaining to the subject
matter, seeking similar reliefs as in this Application.

9) THAT, the applicant submits that he has no

alternative remedy but to approach this Hon’ble Court
under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. The
reliefs prayed for in this application if granted shall be
adequate remedy for the grievances of the applicant.
 11

10) THAT, the applicant undertakes to file Marathi to

English Translation of Annexure as and when directed
by this Hon’ble Court.

Hence, in the light of settled legal position and

judgments passed by this Hon’ble Court and Hon’ble
Supreme Court and facts, averments mentioned in this
application on the F.I.R. No. 75 of 2010 dated 02.05.2010
before the Rampur Police Station, Tehsil Rampur , District
Wardha under Section 420, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 need to be quashed as same is false, baseless,
nothing but sheer abuse of process of law and disclose no
offence by the Applicant.

PRAYER
In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is most
respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to:
1) Allow the instant Criminal Application under Section
482 of Criminal Procedure Code and quash F.I.R.
No. 75 of 2010 dated 02.05.2010 before the
Rampur Police Station, Tehsil Rampur , District
Wardha i.e. Respondent under Section 420, 468 &
471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which is
annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A-1

2) Pass any other and further order or orders as this

Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case.

Nagpur
14.09.2018 APPLICANT
Through

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT

12

ADVOCATE