WP.3133-09 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 3133 OF 2009 Prakash Shantaram Salvi ...Petitioner Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. ...Respondents *** Mr. Rakesh Agrawal, for the Petitioner. Mr. Teja Katdore with Ms. Rawode i/b Mrs. V. K. Khatau & N. A. Shaikh, for Respondent No.1. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for Respondent No. 2. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 1, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR registered with the Navghar Police Station, vide C. R. No. 11 of 2008 and the criminal case arising out of the said FIR being Criminal Case No.2700362 of 2008, which is pending in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 27th Court, Mulund. WP.3133-09 - 2 - 2. The brief facts of the case are as under- . The petitioner is carrying on the business and working as an Octroi clearing agent at the Mulund Octroi Center. A complaint was filed in the Metropolitan Magistrate, 27th Court Mulund for the offences punishable under S. 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of I. P. Code, and process therein was issued by the learned Magistrate. According to the petitioner, somewhere in September 2005 the Patel Engineering Company imported two Micro Tunnelling machines, one of 1500 TB and other of 1200 TB from Germany. These machines were landed at Jawahar Nehru Port, Nava Sewa, and three Bill of Entries were issued. 2. It is case of the respondent No.1 that photo copy of these Bill of Entries were forged by the petitioner to avoid payment of the octroi. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that Bill of Entry is an irrelevant document for the purpose of determination of octroi. He invited my attention to Rule 12 of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Octroi Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “Octroi Rules”). He submitted that as per the Rule 12 of the Octroil Rules, the original invoices had to be submitted in the prescribed format, as prescribed in the Appendix-A, to the said Rules. It is case of the Corporation that accused/petitioner for the WP.3133-09 - 3 - purpose of evading the octroi tax has used the forged and fabricated Bill of Entries. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that no particulars have been mentioned in the complaint as to how the said Bill of Entry was faulty. 3. It is further submitted that the Bill of Entry is not required to be submitted as per the Octroi Rules. He invited my attention to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of – Alimchandani Vs. T. K. Shah [1999 B.C.R.-5-176]. He also invited my attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Corporation. He submits that the Corporation has wrongly relied on Rule 4(c) of the Octroi Rules. I have perused the complaint. There are specific allegations made in the complaint about the forgery and fabrication of the xerox copies of the Bill of Entry. It is an admitted position that the goods were imported from the Germany, cleared at the Jawahar Nehru Port. This being the position, at this stage, it is not possible for this Court to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. The issue as to whether Rule 12 of the Octroi Rules is applicable in this case can be decided at the hearing of the trial. The Apex Court in several cases held that the Courts should be slow in quashing the FIR. 4. The judgment on which reliance is placed by the learned WP.3133-09 - 4 - counsel for the petitioner, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case, a complaint was filed and notice was issued to the complainant under S. 340 Cr. P. C. and under these circumstances, the said observations have been made by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Hence, it is not possible to interfere with the impugned order of issuance of process, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an application for discharge at the appropriate stage. [ V. M. KANADE J.]