1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1640/2009 Girdharilal Sohanlal Agrawal ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, thr. PSO P.s. Hingna and anr. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Rizvy, Advocate for applicant. Mr. Yengal, A.P.P. for non applicant no.1 Mr. Dewani, Advocate for non applicant no.2. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED:- 4 th SEPTEMBER, 2009 1. Non applicant no.2 filed First Information Report at Hingna Police Station being Crime No. 115/2008 dated 28.05.2008 against present applicant and seven other persons alleging therein that certain documents have been brought into existence by indulging in the offence of forgery and certain Government records have been forged. The said First Information Report has been filed on 28.04.2008 and investigation of the same is in progress. The learned A.P.P. Mr. Yengal for the State submitted that the sanction order from the appropriate authority for seeking sanction against one of the accused Mr. Bawiskar and some other person is pending and the charge-sheet is not yet filed. 2 2. After having heard learned Advocates for both the sides, I am inclined to observe that the present First Information Report relates to lands bearing nos. 46, 47 and 48 situated at village Nildo, Dist. Nagpur and in the body of the First Information Report, it has been specifically stated by non applicant no. 2 that one of the accused by name Vijay Naidu along with present applicant and others have committed forgery in respect of the Government documents. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Rizvy appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that if one peruses the First Information Report, it appears that no case is made out against the applicant and case of the applicant falls in item nos. 2 to 7 as mentioned in judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others ..vs.. Bhajan Lal and ors; 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 which lays down the points on the basis of which an application for quashing of the First Information Report can be considered. 4. The applicant came to be arrested on 21.09.2008 after his application for anticipatory bail came 3 to be rejected. The present proceedings for quashing of the First Information Report are filed in April-2009 that is after seven months. 5. I have considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others ..vs.. Bhajan Lal and ors. (supra) and applied the parameters set out in the said case. I am inclined to observe that the allegations set out in the First Information Report that present applicant has by joining hands with Vijay Naidu had forged and the documents in regard to the properties in question. The investigation in the present case is pending. Needless to mention that on the strength of the text of First Information Report, it is not a case where the First Information Report can be quashed. The offences are being investigated by police and of course, if there is any material against the applicant certainly police will file charge-sheet against the applicant and if no material is found against the applicant in the course of investigation, police will report accordingly. No doubt, this is not a case where Court should quash the First Information Report when the investigation is in the final stage. 4 6. In my view, on the basis of the developments as of today, this is not a case where acts of the applicant will fall within any of the parameters set out in State of Haryana and others ..vs.. Bhajan Lal and ors. Hence, the application is required to be dismissed at the admission stage. Hence, the order. The application is dismissed. It is clarified that whatever is observed in this order, shall not be used by the State or non applicant no.2 against the applicant at the time of trial. JUDGE kahale