( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3495 OF 2010 Rahuldev s/o Devidas Patole (Patil), R/o H. No. 9, Darshan Vihar, Satara Parisar, Aurangabad. APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through In-charge, Police Station, Osmanpura, Aurangabad. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS .... Mr. V.D. Sapkal, advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondents. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 15th September, 2010] PER COURT : 1. This is an application filed under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The applicant alleges that as a result of filing of divorce petition by him against his wife i.e. Manisha, false report was lodged against him in order to defame him and implicate him in a false case. He alleges that she i.e. Smt. ( 2 ) Manisha gave false report about the matrimonial cruelty and preparation of false documents regarding her prior marriage with a view to harass her. 3. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned A.P.P. 4. Perusal of the investigation papers prima facie indicates that the marriage between the applicant and said Manisha was solemnized on June 30, 2010. It appears that mother of the applicant is employee working in the Family Court, Aurangabad. His father is a practicing advocate. It further appears that the applicant is employee in L.I.C. The applicant alleges that he received a postal communication from one Ganesh Sitaram Chavan resident of village Ganori, alongwith a photograph of said Ganesh and the complainant - Manisha. The communication informed him that on 30th April, 2010, they had married in accordance with the rites and customs of Hindu religion at place of Ganpati Mandir, Ganori under Phulambri Tahsil. It appears that another communication was reportedly received by the applicant alleging that the applicant had performed second marriage with Smt. Manisha and that her parents had kidnapped her from the house of her first ( 3 ) husband by name Ganesh Chavan. He received a copy of affidavit sworn in by Manisha on 30th April, 2010 before the Notary Public alongwith a copy of the marriage certificate and copy of an agreement styled as `kararnama' purportedly executed between said Ganesh Chavan and Manisha Chavan on one hand and the priest of the temple by name Pandit Harinarayan Prasad. The father of Manisha lodged a report on 5th July, 2010 at Police Station, Osmanpura alleging that due to such communication shown to him, he and his daughter i.e. Manisha were mentally upset and troubled. 5. The learned advocate for the applicant would submit that the arrest of the applicant is not at all required for purpose of any effective investigation. He would submit that the charges against the applicant are concocted and he had no business prima facie to prepare antedated document which related to the so called marriage between Manisha and Ganesh Chavan, which prima facie appears to have been performed on 30th April, 2010. The learned advocate further submits that the applicant is likely to be humiliated and insulted due to the arrest and that is the main reason why a false complaint is filed by said Manisha after filing of the divorce petition by him. ( 4 ) 6. The investigation papers prima facie indicate that one Ku. Sayyed Israt alias Isha Tabassum is a young female employee of L.I.C. She stated before the police that she came in contact with the applicant and he used her so as to impersonate while preparing an affidavit before the Notary Public by name Mr. Sampatraj P. Deora, advocate. The statement of Mr. Sampatraj P. Deora, advocate, of-course, reflects rather irresponsible conduct on his part. He stated before the police that he did not verify identity of the woman who signed on the said affidavit. He further stated before the police that because a xerox copy of the affidavit dated 30th April, 2010 was un-available with him, the said document was fabricated one. He further stated that as there was rush of work, he did not verify the identity of the woman who had signed the affidavit. It is prima facie clear that the affidavit is fabricated and the Notary Public i.e. Advocate Mr. Sampatraj P. Deora has no moral right to continue in the office. A copy of this order may be forwarded by the learned A.P.P. to the Law and Judiciary Department and Home Department of the Government of Maharashtra, for taking appropriate action so as to remove the name of Mr. Sampatraj P. Deora from the concerned register as provided under the Notaries Act. ( 5 ) 7. There appears prima facie material to infer that the documents pertaining to the marriage between Manisha and said Ganesh Chavan are brought up without there being semblance of genuineness. Though the applicant alleges that he received a marriage certificate issued by Shri Pandit Harinarayan Prasad alongwith a copy of agreement i.e. `kararnama', yet, police investigation revealed that no such person resides at the address given on the communication. The statement of the Notary Public shows that the parents of the applicant had been to him subsequently and had asked him not to depose anything in the Court. 8. There is prima facie material gathered during course of investigation to infer that the applicant might have fabricated certain documents with a view to blackmail the parents of Manisha or to obtain divorce from her or for any other ulterior motive. It is difficult to fathom human mind and particularly at the premature stage. The contention of learned advocate for the applicant is that such events would not have occurred in the succession and within short span of the marriage and moreover, all that has come on record is after the divorce petition was filed. The sequence of events ( 6 ) can be also taken otherwise so as to infer that the applicant immediately wanted to get rid of the wife or that he wanted to obtain monetary benefits from her parents and, therefore, took assistance from the co-worker viz. Ku. Sayyed Israt alias Isha Tabassum for preparing certain documents with the help of Notary Public Mr. Sampatraj P. Deora, Advocate. Under these circumstances, the applicant does not deserve liberty. Hence, the application is dismissed. 9. No observations made hereinabove be considered while deciding any other application of the applicant or in any other proceedings. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln3495-10 ( 7 )