1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.575 OF 2009. Shivajirao S/o Bhanudas Kardile ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.N.V.Gaware, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.Y.M. Kshirsagar, A.P.P. for the State. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 06.10.2009. PER COURT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the FIR registered against him at Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar, vide Crime 2 No.I-120/2002, for offence punishable U/ss 171, 177, 181 and 471 of the I.P.C. 3. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner contested legislative assembly elections from Ahmednagar (North) constituency in 2004. He submitted his nomination paper along with affidavit duly attested by notary public. In his affidavit, the petitioner disclosed information required under the law. The FIR is lodged by the returning Officer on allegation that in the format of the affidavit, the petitioner did not disclose information pertaining to pending Crime No.I-121/2002 which was registered against him at Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar. The FIR came to be lodged, therefore, due to suppression of such information and thereby commission of the offences as described hereinabove. 4. The petitioner impugns the very basis of the FIR on the ground that he was not required to furnish the information pertaining to Crime No.I-121/2002 because no charge was framed at the 3 material time in the Criminal case which came to be instituted in pursuance to registration of such crime. His submission is that the continuation of the FIR would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. He alleges that the FIR is out-come of vendetta and political rivalry against him. 5. Heard learned counsel and learned A.P.P. I have perused the reply affidavit filed in support of the case put forth in the FIR. So also I have gone through the FIR. 6. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of Roznama in the context of Criminal case bearing RTC No.279/2002. He has also placed on record the extract issued by the Kotwali Police Station which purports to show that FIR bearing No.I-121/2002, registered against him at Kotwali Police Station was investigated and ultimately charge-sheet was filed which is registered by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate vide RTC No. 279/2002. The copy of Roznama in Criminal case (RTC No.279/2002) purports to show that the 4 charge was not framed in the said Criminal case as on filing of the nomination papers by the petitioners. It appears that he prepared sworn affidavit dated 16.9.2004. The copy of Roznama in the Criminal case (RTC No.279/2002) would show that on 4.9.2004 summons was issued to the accused i.e. the petitioner. The Court was vacant as Judicial Officer was not appointed to man the same. Thus, the Criminal case was at preliminary stage when the petitioner had submitted his affidavit and application in the required format as a candidate for the Assembly Election. It is pertinent to note that in the reply affidavit there is nothing to show that, in fact, the Criminal Court had framed charges against the petitioner in the said Criminal case. It is true, no doubt, that the Criminal case arising out of Crime No.I-121/2002 was instituted against him and was pending. At the same time, it can not be overlooked that the Criminal Court had issued only summons to him. There is nothing on record to show that as on the date of his filing of the affidavit he was duly served with summons of the said Criminal case. Needless to 5 say, knowledge can not be attributed to him about pendency of the said Criminal case arising out of Crime bearing No.I-121/2002, registered at Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar. 7. Section 33-A (i) reads as follows : "33.A. Right to information. - (l) A candidate shall, apart from any information which he is required to furnish, under this Act or the rules made thereunder, in his nomination paper delivered under sub-section (1) of Section 33, also furnish the information as to whether - (i) he is accused of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more in a pending case in which a charge has been framed by the court of competent jurisdiction." A plain reading of sub-clause (i) of Section 33.A(1) would make it manifestly clear that the candidate is required to furnish the information 6 as to whether he is accused of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more in a pending case in which a charge has been framed by the court of competent jurisdiction. Obviously, two things are necessary so as to make obligatory for the candidate to disclose the information regarding the Criminal case pending against him. First, that he is accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more. Secondly, that in such a pending case, the charge has been framed by the competent court of jurisdiction against him. Presumably, the law takes care of the situation, where a candidate may not be required to disclose such information if he is discharged at preliminary stage though a Criminal case is instituted against him. It is explicit, therefore, that the petitioner was not under legal obligation to disclose the information pertaining to the Criminal case pending against him vide RTC No. 279/2002 pending on file of the learned Judicial magistrate, Ahmednagar, inasmuch as the charge was not framed as on the date of his filing of the nomination paper along with the affidavit. 7 Under the circumstances, the filing of the FIR against him is not likely to result in any substantial out-come. It would amount to abuse of the judicial process. Hence, the FIR is illegal and unsustainable. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR stands quashed. Rule made absolute accordingly. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crwp57509