Quashed

Shaikh Muntajib S/O. Shaikh Maula Bagwan v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC11 Jan 2023APPLN/192/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal application under Section 482 CrPC sought to quash an FIR alleging cheating and forgery regarding a fabricated death certificate. The High Court quashed the proceedings and consequent charge after finding that the FIR did not disclose essential ingredients of the offences or any cognizable offence.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR C.R. No. 395 of 2020 and R.C.C. No. 265 of 2021.

Shaikh Muntajib S/O. Shaikh Maula Bagwan Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

952-APPLN-192-21.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 192 OF 2021

¶4

Shaikh Muntajib Shaikh Maula Bagwan

¶5

..APPLICANT

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Maharashtra and Another

¶8

..RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. Faij Khan, Advocate for applicant Mrs. V.N. Patil-Jadhav, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 – State Mr. V.V. Bhavthankar, Advocate for respondent no.2

¶10

CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI AND R.M. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 11^th JANUARY, 2023

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. 395 of 2020 registered with Hingoli City Police Station, Dist. Hingoli for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent R.C.C. No. 265 of 2021 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hingoli.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for Respondent No.2. We have perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶14

1 / 3

¶15

952-APPLN-192-21.odt

¶16

The crime in question against the applicant is registered pursuant to the F.I.R. lodged by Respondent No.2, Senior Clerk of Municipal Council, Hingoli. The allegation against the applicant is that he has fabricated death certificate of one Hussian Miya Abdul Gafur Tambe. It is not in dispute that said Hussain Miya had expired on 18^th January, 2006. On the basis of the information given by the applicant, the death came to be registered at Municipal Council, Hingoli. According to the complainant, said Hussian Miya had expired at Saudi Arabia and not at Hingoli as reported by the applicant. It is further stated that on the basis of the said death certificate, a change report was filed which was accepted on 06^th January, 2007.

¶17

The applicant is not a trustee of the Trust and he has not in any manner benefited from the change report. The F.I.R. as well as other material on record collected in the course of investigation does not indicate that the applicant herein had deceived or induced any person to deliver any property or that he had made a false document with an intention to cause damage or injury to public or any person. The F.I.R. does not disclose any of the ingredients of cheating or forgery as defined under Sections 415 and 463 I.P.C.

¶18

Having perused the records, in our consideration the F.I.R. as well as the material collected in the course of investigation does not disclose any cognizable offence. Hence, in our considered view, the present case is

¶19

2 / 3

¶20

952-APPLN-192-21.odt

¶21

covered by illustrations 1 and 3 as laid down in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 AIR 604 . Under these circumstances, we are of the view that continuation of these proceedings would be sheer abuse of the process of Court.

¶22

Hence, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) and (B1). Consequently, F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. 395 of 2020 registered with Hingoli City Police Station, Dist. Hingoli for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent R.C.C. No. 265 of 2021 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hingoli stand quashed.

¶23

( R.M. JOSHI, J. ) ( SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. )

¶24

SSD

¶25

3 / 3

Shaikh Muntajib S/O. Shaikh Maula Bagwan v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Muntajib S/O. Shaikh Maula Bagwan v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raosaheb Vikram Latpate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sheshnarayan Rajanna Katkuri Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sadashiv S/O. Jaywant Farande Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deven Sanjay Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohammad Jirikoddin Mohammad Azimoddin and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohammad Hidayatullah S/O. Mohammad Sayeedullah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others