1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1451 OF 2010 Pravin s/o Ashok Dilwale ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri R.V. Gore, Advocate for the applicant Mrs. Vaishali More More, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 29h April, 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard Mr. R.V. Gore, learned counsel for the applicant as well as heard Mrs. Vaishali More, learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant, seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in M. Case No. 48/2010, registered at Vaijapur Police Station, District Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 3. It appears that, the complainant Jagannath Namdeo Shinde has filed a private complaint before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vaijapur against his brother namely Sopan Namdeo Shinde and the present applicant namely Pravin Ashok Dilwale on 4.9.2009 under Sections 420, 467, 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, learned Magistrate issued directions under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In pursuance of the said directions M. Case No.48/2010 came to be registered on 20.2.2010 against Sopan Namdeo Shinde and present applicant namely Pravin Ashok Dilwale. Present applicant is serving as Talathi at Rotegaon, Taluka Vaijapur, District Aurangabad. 4. It is alleged in the said complaint filed by Jagannath Namdeo Shinde that his brother Sopan Namdeo Shinde and the applicant, who is working as Talathi at Rotegaon, Taluka Vaijapur, District Aurangabad, in collusion with each other, made a Ferfar No.1287 on submission of one partition deed by accused No.1 and erased the name of complainant's wife namely Chhaya from 7/12 extract of Gat No.105, Mouze Rotegaon, Taluka Vaijapur, District Aurangabad falsely and thereby cheated the complainant. 5. On the aforesaid background, the learned counsel for the applicant urged that, it is a civil dispute between the two brothers namely complainant Jagannath and his brother accused 3 No.1 Sopan and civil suit is pending between them and present complaint is a counterblast to the said civil dispute. It is also submitted that, there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. It is further canvassed that the entire record is with the Government authorities and there is no necessity of custodial interrogation of the applicant in further investigation. 6. The learned A.P.P. opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that there are two 7/12 extracts of same Gat No.105 for the year 2006 and the first 7/12 extract indicates the name of Chhaya Jagannath Shinde whereas the another 7/12 extract discloses that the name of Chhaya Jagannath Shinde has been deleted by Ferfar No.1287 and, therefore, submitted that, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary to find out and to investigate in the matter of said deletion of name of Chhaya by Ferfar No.1287. It is also submitted by learned A.P.P. that, there is no mention in the record that any notice was issued to Chhaya before deletion of her name. It is further submitted that the applicant being Talathi at Mouze Rotegaon, Taluka Vaijapur, District Aurangabad, who effected the said Ferfar in question and, therefore, there is no question of his false implication in the alleged offence. 7. On perusal of investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions advanced by both the learned respective 4 counsel for the parties, admittedly the applicant is working as Talathi at Mouze Rotegaon, Taluka Vaijapur, District Aurangabad and was custodian of the record of the concerned entries at the relevant time and, therefore, there is no possibility of false implication of the applicant in the alleged crime apparently. Moreover, considering the allegations that the accused No.1 Sopan and the applicant herein, in collusion with each other, prepared the false document and deleted the name of Chhaya by Ferfar entry No.1287 in respect of Gat No.105, Mouze Rotegaon, Taluka Vaijapur, District Aurangabad, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the further investigation in proper perspective. The aspect of alleged delay in lodging the complaint can be considered at the time of trial and need not be gone into at this stage. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that matter is of civil nature between the two brothers i.e. complainant Jagannath Namdeo Shinde and accused No.1 Sopan, it is in respect of partition of the said land, but as regards the alleged offence, applicant being Talathi, is apparently involved therein in respect of preparation of Ferfar No.1287, by which the name of Chhaya has been deleted. It also appears that no notice has been given to Chhaya before deletion of her name. Hence, considering the accusations made against the applicant, which are serious, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. 8. In the result, present application being sans merits, 5 stands dismissed. 9. Needless to say that the above observations are prima facie in nature and shall not come in way of any Court while deciding the matter on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE fmp/cri145110