1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3582 OF 2009 Harihar s/o Padmakar Patil - Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.KC Sant, Advocate for Applicant; Mr.NN Jadhav, APP for State. Mr.VB Patil, Advocate for Resp.No.3. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 16th December, 2009. PER COURT : 1) Heard Mr. Sant; learned APP and Mr. Patil for the respective parties. 2) The accused/applicant sought quashment of proceedings in terms of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. However, by order dated 31st August, 2009, Criminal Revision Application No.264/2008 was rejected. The present criminal application relates to the same prayers in respect of the very special case No.52/2008, which is pending before the learned Sessions Judge at Jalgaon. 2 3) Elaborate submissions were made by Mr. Sant and Mr. Patil on the respective averments. The change of circumstance noticed by the applicant – Harihar, as projected by Mr. Sant, is, there was already a report moved by the complainant – Karan with the concerned Police, and he withdrew the same, which fact he has suppressed. 4) I quite see that said Karan had indeed approached the police in the afternoon and then withdrew the application, subsequently lodged a report at 6.00 p.m. It is not in dispute that charge sheet is filed against the present applicant/accused on 8.8.2008, he has approached the learned Judge for discharge, which has been negatived. The matter is pending at the stage of charge. The non-disclosure of lodging of the report on 19.7.2008 earlier in time in the subsequent report, may be a good ground for testing the truthfulness of the bonafide of said Karan during trial, but it will not be available to be castigated while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are to be exercised in the following situation, as indicated in several pronouncements of the Apex Court, more particularly in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and Ors, reported in AIR 1992 3 SC 604, which read as under : “(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R.do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose 265 the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation 4 is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a 5 view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 5) I do not see that there is any change of circumstance invoking the jurisdiction in terms of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. The Criminal Application rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/cran3582.09