IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal application No. 3194 of 2006 Baburao Gomaji Dahat -Versus- State of Mah. Through P.S.O., P.S. Hingna. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. P.N. Mehta, learned Adv. for Petitioner. Mr. Sonare, learned APP for State. CORAM:- A.B.Chaudhari, J. DATED :- 3 rd March ,2010 Heard Mr. P.N. Mehta for the applicant. He submits that court has jurisdiction to entertain the present application for quashing the charge-sheet. He submits that this court ought to exercise the jurisdiction under inherent powers. He submits that charge sheet has been filed on the basis of fourth ‘first information report’ and, therefore, he has made out a clear cut case. He relied on the decision in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala reported in AIR 2001 SC, 2637. At the opening of the hearing learned counsel for the state was asked to find out after calling concerned police officer and after perusal of the charge-sheet and connected papers as to whether the applicant really has any role to play in the alleged offence of cheating. The allegations are that the applicant acting as a headmaster of the school has signed appointment orders and also sent proposal for salary grants which the school receives from the government. According to the State, the appointment orders as well as the act of receiving salary grant amounted to cheating the government for reasons more than one. As stated earlier, in response to query made by this court now Mr. Sonare, learned counsel for the State has received the concerned record from the police station along with charge-sheet and relevant documents. The relevant documents were also shown to Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the applicant, to verify about the allegations of the prosecution that they were signed by the applicant. Mr. Mehta submits that those documents pertain to the period which is not in question and therefore they are irrelevant and therefore the court should consider the matter at length for quashing the charge-sheet. I have considered the submissions made by Mr. Mehta as well as learned APP. In the instant case, admittedly charge sheet has been filed. Whether there were four first information reports lodged against the applicant is a matter which can very well be put forth in the form of defence by the applicant by filing application for discharge and the applicant can file such application if he so thinks. All the matters which have been raised by Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the applicant can certainly be raised for his client by making application for discharge if there is really no evidence against his client. It is not possible for this court under inherent powers to go on examining each and every evidence relied upon by the prosecution including the charge sheet and examine the same in necessary details, lest it should cause prejudice to either of the sides without giving full opportunity. For these reasons, therefore, in my opinion the judgment referred above by Mr. Mehta has no application and the said defence can be taken up while making discharge application regarding the multiplicity of first information reports lodged. For all these reasons, therefore, this application is disposed of leaving all the points open with liberty to the applicant to apply for discharge in the trial court on what ever defence the applicant has or the grounds he wants to raise in support of his application for discharge which shall be considered by the trial court in accordance with law. This application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Hirekhan