2007 ALL MR (Cri) 3362
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY(NAGPUR BENCH)
C.L. PANGARKAR, J.
Rajkumar Dhanuji Bombarde Vs. Madhukar S/O. Nathuji Wankhede & Anr.
Criminal Application No.871 of 2007
11th September, 2007
Petitioner Counsel: Shri. P. N. MEHTA
Respondent Counsel: Shri. MAHESH SINGH
Criminal P.C. (1973), Ss.340, 438, 482 - Quashing of FIR - Application for - Applicant seeking for quashing of F.I.R. and till quashing of F.I.R. only Protection from arrest was sought - No anticipatory bail claimed - However, anticipatory bail granted by Sessions Court on 02-12-06 - Application under S.482 filed before High Court withdrawn only on 09-03-07 and not immediately after grant of anticipatory bail - Hence, contention that application under S.482 was filed only to evade arrest, held, was not tenable. 1992 Cri.L.J. 3752 - Ref. to. (Para 7)
Godrej and Boyee Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Union of India, 1992 Cri.L.J. 3752 [Para 7]
Applicant was Vice President of Ashok Shikshan Sanstha Gondia. Non-applicants were associated with the Society and had no administrative control over it, yet it is alleged that they misappropriated large funds of the Society by forging certain documents. The applicant, therefore, lodged a report with the police. The police registered an offence. The non-applicants, therefore filed an application under Section 482 before this Court praying to quash the F.I.R. and also sought protection from arrest. It was alleged in that application that no other application claiming such relief and with regard to same subject matter was filed in any other Court. However, the non-applicants had filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge Gondia being Application No.205/06 on 27-11-06. It is contended that even though this application No.205/06 was filed at Gondia on 27-11-06 no reference was made to it in Application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code before the High Court being Application No.3849/06. It is contended that this suppression and making declaration that no other application is filed was patently false statement on oath and as such offence as stated in Section 193 Criminal Procedure Code is committed and therefore a complaint should be lodged against the non-applicants.
5. Application under Section 482 before this Court was filed on 29-11-2006 while the anticipatory bail application at Gondia was filed on 27-11-06 is not disputed. It is also not disputed that application under Section 482 does contain the declaration that no other application claiming such relief is filed in this Court or the Supreme Court. I reproduce here para 12 :
"The applicants have not filed any petition, application in the same subject matter either before this Hon'ble Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India any time before."
6. The declaration therefore is that no other petition before High Court or Supreme Court is filed. There is no declaration that it is not so filed in other Court. Apparently, therefore, there is no false statement as such.
7. Further the application before the High Court was for quashing the F.I.R. and one at Gondia was essentially for anticipatory bail. The main relief before this Court was quashing of F.I.R. and till quashing of F.I.R. only protection from arrest was sought. No anticipatory bail was claimed here. Protection from arrest was consequential relief. The application before this Court not being an application for anticipatory bail, the statement in para 12 could not be said to be false at all. Shri. Mehta had contended that as soon as Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail the application under Section 482 was withdrawn and therefore the main object of the non-applicants was to evade arrest. Such an inference cannot be drawn. The application was withdrawn on 09-03-07 while anticipatory bail was granted on 02-12-06. Thus it was withdrawn after 3 months and not immediately. Shri. Mehta had cited one decision of this Court in Godrej and Boyee Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. And another Vs. The Union of India and others, 1992 Criminal Law Journal 3752. I need not go into the ratio of this case since I find that no false statement on oath is made. Application is, therefore, rejected.