1 CR.APPLN.NO.3954/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3954 OF 2010 Chanda s/o Pandu Malche ...APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Mharashtra. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.Mr.H.F.Pawar, Adv., for the applicant. Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, APP for respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:7/1/2011 *** PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel extensively. The applicant herein seeks to quash the proceedings for an offense under Sections 420, 489(A) (B)(C) and 120(B) of IPC, now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,Taloda vide RCC No.57/2009. 2. The principal contention of the learned Counsel is, the accused/applicant has no role in the act of counterfeiting. He learnt the same subsequently. He has simply facilitated his 2 CR.APPLN.NO.3954/2010 vehicle to his brother-in-law, being so demanded, without any consideration or remuneration. The accused/applicant is a Government employee and, therefore, deserves quashment of proceedings against him. 3. At this stage of the matter, the application for exercise of jurisdiction in terms of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and exercised in favour of the accused/applicant for following reasons: The accused applicant claims to be an innocent person, however, record illustrates that he was actually found counterfeiting currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- in lot in the village market and has made his presence scarce. The offense of bringing fake currency in circulation is against the Government Exchequer and is tarnishing image and even is fatal to ordinary person. The innocuous approach that the accused/applicant claims is not as simple as he has been showing. The offense under Section 120-B of IPC also needs to be considered. It may be an act in concert of the other accused. In the situation, I do not see any reason to interfere. 4. Learned Counsel for the accused/applicant submits that the matter is not committed to the Sessions Court. I find 3 CR.APPLN.NO.3954/2010 substance in it, however, it is due to the other accused who have made their presence scarce. The Court machinery cannot be blamed for the same. Application dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/3954-10crapl