IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5078 OF 2009 Uday Narolkar ...Applicant Vs. The Union Territory of Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvass ...Respondent ---- Shri Balkrishna D. Joshi for Applicant Shri D.A. Nalavade for Union of India – Respondent Mr. S.A. Shaikh – APP for State ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATE : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. ---- 1. The Applicant is a practicing advocate in the Court of Silvassa. He had filed an application under section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation. According to him, the father of the deceased, had instructed one advocate Bhagat to file the said application and along with the said letter he sent vakalatnama which was signed by all the claimants. Later on Shri Bhagat died. The present Applicant had filed his vakalatnama and filed application on behalf of the claimants. According to the Applicant he was informed by the father of the deceased that since a claim petition was also filed in Azamgad in the State of U. P. and since his daughter-in-law is no longer with him, he instructed him to withdraw the said application. Accordingly, the said application was withdrawn and later on a letter was sent by daughter-in-law to the Principal Judge of MACT, Silvassa alleging that the present Applicant had cheated the claimants by withdrawing the said application and she had never instructed the Applicant to withdraw the application. According to the Applicant, father of the deceased had instructed him to withdraw the said case. He submitted that, therefore, no case is made out for the offence punishable under sections 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The Applicant has annexed the letter which was written by the father of the deceased to Advocate Shri Bhagat. Vakalatnama also has been filed by the present Applicant on behalf of the four claimants. The District Court has directed the police to take cognisance by writing a letter through the Registrar of Court. 3. The learned APP for the State has shown to me the original record. The application is signed by the Complainant. An application is also filed seeking permission to appear through an advocate which also is signed by the Complainant Geetanjali and by her father-in-law. The vakalatnama is also signed by her. Thus, prima facie it appears that instructions were in fact given for filing the case on their behalf. The father-in-law has again reiterated his stand that he had instructed the Applicant to withdraw the application. 4. That being the position , prima facie, no case is made out for the offence punishable under sections 430, 465, 468, 471 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. No allegation is made as to what benefit the present Applicant would get by either filing this application for compensation and, thereafter withdrawing it. Therefore, ingredients under section 420 are not made out in the said complaint. In my view, custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not necessary. The Applicant, in the event of his arrest, in connection with C.R. No. 298 of 2009 registered with Silvassa be released on bail in a sum of Rs.5,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. He shall report to the concerned police station for a period of three days from 23rd November, 2009 between 11.30 a.m. & 2.00 p.m. and, thereafter, as when called. 5. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)