1 6-488-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY srj CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.488 OF 2010 Mehar Srivastava .. Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents. Ms. Sonal i/b. Mr. Prasad Das, for the Petitioner. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATE : 14th FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C.: 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the counsel. 2 This Petition is filed to challenge the order dated 3rd July, 2009 passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Raigad, dismissing the Criminal Revision Application No.97 of 2008 filed by the Petitioner and also for his discharge in Regular Criminal Case No.104 of 2007, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pen. Respondent-State has filed affidavit in reply to oppose the application. 2 6-488-10.sxw 3 The Petitioner had purchased a TOYOTA car from a show room situated at Andheri, Mumbai. When it came to the registration of the vehicle, he chose to register the same with Pen RTO Office, by giving his residential address as plot no.330, Rachana Apartment, Plot No.28, sector 18, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai. This address was subsequently found to be a bogus address. No residential building by name Rachana Apartment exists at Kharghar. The very address was shown in a telephone bill purportedly issued by M.T.N.L. The telephone bill was produced as a proof of permanent residence at the bogus address. The insurance documents of the car also disclosed the same address. According to the prosecution, the falsehood was resorted to by the applicant to avoid payment of higher registration fees. The registration fees payable in Mumbai is 30% of the cost of the vehicle plus the octroi dues payable thereon. For the vehicle registered in the rural area, the registration fee is only 7% of the cost of the vehicle. Therefore, complaint came to be filed vide CR No.74 of 2007, on the basis of statement dated 12th April, 2007 of Assistant Police Inspector attached to the Pen Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w section 34 of I.P.C. 3 6-488-10.sxw 4 The facts stated in the FIR taken at the face value do disclose the offences alleged against the Petitioner. Hence, the Sessions Court was correct in refusing to discharge the Petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. (JUDGE)