drp {1} CWP No.126/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.126 OF 2011 Narayan Bhanudasrao Lonkar PETITIONER Age-58 years, Occ-Advocate R/o Didyanagar (West) Beed VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Through Police Station, Shivaji Nagar, Beed 2. Raosa Dagdu Gangawane R/o Kumbhari, Tq & Dist-Beed ....... Mr.G.K.Naik-Thigle, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.G.R.Ingole, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 8 th April 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Respondent No.2 is absent, though duly served. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally at the stage of drp {2} CWP No.126/2011 admission. 3. By this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India r/s section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the Complaint bearing RCC No.128/2011, order dated 08.02.2011 passed by JMFC, Beed in RCC No.128/2011 and the FIR bearing No.35/2011 lodged with Shivaji Nagar police station, Beed. 4. Brief facts, which gave rise to file the present petition, may be summarized thus - The petitioner is a practicing advocate at District Court, Beed. The petitioner had filed RCS No.136/2009 on behalf of Bhagirathibai against State, Special Land Acquisition Officer, her step mother and two sisters. All the defendants had appeared in the said suit and had contested the same. It appears that the said civil suit was converted into land reference No.139/2009. It further appears that said Bhagirathibai and other contesting defendants have settled their dispute outside the Court and had filed drp {3} CWP No.126/2011 compromise pursis before the competent Court. Record further shows that the parties were identified before the district Court by their respective advocates. It was agreed between the parties that out of the amount of compensation said Bhagirathibai was to receive Rs.1,07,750 whereas her step mother and two sisters were to receive Rs.8,95,443/-. Accordingly, the land reference was disposed of. It further appears that respondent No.2, had filed Miscellaneous Civil Application No.279/2010 before the District Court against the State, Special Land Acquisition Officer, said Bhagirathibai and her step mothers and two sisters. The said application is still pending before the competent court. It also appears that during the pendency of the said application, respondent No.2 has filed a private complaint before JMFC, Beed against the present petitioner and others for an offence punishable u/s 199, 200, 408, 409, 418, 419 and 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and on 08.02.2011. Learned JMFC, has passed an order that as the complainant has prayed for issuance of directions to Shivaji Nagar police station, Beed, to investigate u/s 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code hence directions to Shivaji Nagar police station, Beed to carry out investigation. drp {4} CWP No.126/2011 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawn my attention to the contents of paragraph No.8 of RCC No.128/2011 wherein it is alleged that on 13.11.2009 by creating fraud upon the Court, accused No.1 to 5 with their respective counsel, had withdrawn the amount of Rs.1,33,884/- of the share of respondent No.2. 6. At this juncture, it may be useful to reproduce Sections 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code, which read thus- 199. False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence- Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration any Court of Justice, or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorized by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to the object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence. 200. Using as true such declaration knowing it to be false – Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true any such declaration, knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence. 7. It is a matter of fact that the civil application No. drp {5} CWP No.126/2011 279/2010 filed by respondent No.2 is still pending and no decision has been rendered in the same that false statement or declaration is made by the present petitioner in the Land Reference so also it is not decided by the competent court that the declaration is used as true and correct declaration and on the basis of it verdict has been delivered by the competent civil court. Unless and until such finding is recorded there shall not be an offence u/s 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code. Perusal of entire record does not disclose that the petitioner has induced to either side to deliver the property and there is any wrongful gain to him. It also appears that the petitioner has no domain over the property, as required to constitute an offence punishable u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that without considering that these ingredients are required to be made out in the averments of the compliant and without application of mind the JMFC has passed the order directing investigation u/s 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the premise, the FIR lodged on the basis of directions of learned JMFC and further proceedings of the same are required to be quashed and set aside to the extent of this applicant only. drp {6} CWP No.126/2011 8 Consequently, the petition succeeds. Proceedings of RCC No.128/2011, order dated 08.02.2011 passed by JMFC, Beed in RCC No.128/2011 and the FIR bearing No.35/2011 lodged at Shivajinagar Police Station, Beed qua applicant is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause “B”. No costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/cwp126-11