1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (APL) No. 78 of 2011 Bhaurao Govindrao Ghodeswar ..VERSUS.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S., Bhandara, Dist. Bhandara. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S. G. Karmarkar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. P. V. Bhoyar, A.P.P. for the respondent State CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 15 th April , 2011 . 1. Heard Mr. S. G. Karmarkar, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. P .V. Bhoyar, learned APP for the respondent/State. 2. By the present application, the applicant is seeking quashment of proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No. 183/2002 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhandara as well as the order passed below Exh.69 dated 29/01/2011 passed by the learned C.J.M., Bhandara. 3. Mr. Karmarkar, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the FIR Crime No. 107/2002 and the proceedings initiated on the report against the applicant is sheer abuse of process of law. The learned Advocate by inviting my attention to the FIR submitted that even the name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR. The only material against the applicant is the statement of one co-accused. He further submitted that the applicant had filed an application (Exh.69) seeking his discharge before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhandra, but the learned Magistrate without considering the material erroneously dismissed the application. Therefore, the applicant has 2 approached this Court by filing present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 4. Per contra, learned APP has filed the reply and opposed the application. With the assistance of the learned Advocates, I have gone through the material on record. 5. Perusal of the FIR shows that Ku. V. T. Patil, Principal of Mahila Junior College of Education, Bhandara had lodged report at Police Station, Bhandara. It was stated in the report that two students namely Ku. Sharda Dongre and Ku. Chanda Raut were admitted in the college for D.Ed. 1st year course. While taking admission, these students submitted mark-sheets of 12th standard issued by the Higher Secondary School Board, Nagpur. These mark-sheets were forwarded to the Higher Secondary Board, Nagpur for verification. It was reported that there is difference in the marks in the mark-sheets submitted by these students. In view of this fact, it was stated in the report that appropriate action be taken against these students. 6. Though, there is substance in the submission of learned Advocate Mr. Karmarkar that there is no mention of the applicant in the said FIR, it is well settled position of the law that the FIR is not an encyclopedia. It reveals from the material on record that on receiving the report, the investigating agency proceeded to collect further evidence. During the investigation, a statement of Ku. Chanda Raut was recorded under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. As per her statement, the applicant/accused had assured her to increase the marks in the mark-sheet of 12th Standard and also accepted an amount of Rs.1000/-. The house of the applicant was shown by accused Ku. Chanda. The statement of Smt. Patil, Principal of the College, is also placed on record. In the statement, Smt. Patil has stated that in the enquiry conducted by the Higher Secondary Board, it was revealed that there was difference of marks in the mark-sheets 3 of Chanda Raut and Sharda Dongre. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned C.J.M., Bhandara show that the applicant/accused remained absent for a long period, NBW was pending against him and as such the case was split up and tried separately against accused nos.1 and 2 only. It also reveals that when the proclamation was issued against the present applicant under Sections 82 & 83 of Cr.P.C., the applicant rushed to the Court of learned CJM and submitted application (Exh.69) seeking discharge. The learned CJM observed that the applicant is trying to prolong the case, which is already delayed because of his absence. On these grounds, the learned CJM rejected the application (Exh.69) with costs. 7. Mr. Bhoyar, learned APP for the State has submitted that as per the record, the applicant is involved in similar nature of offences and a chart of the offences registered against him is annexed to the reply. Perusal of the chart shows that the applicant is involved in the following offences registered at various police stations. P.S. Name Cr.No. Year Section Name Father age Address Ambazari 290 2001 420, 468 34 IPC Bhaurao Ghodeswar Govindrao Ghodeswar 58 Bezanbag Pancholi 422 1992 420, 467, 471,468, 34 IPC Bhaurao Ghodeswar Govindrao Ghodeswar 48 Bezanbag, PS Jaripatka Sonegaon 198 1991 320,465,4 68,471 IPC Bhaurao Ghodeswar Govindrao Ghodeswar 40 Bezanbag, PS Pachpaoli, Ajni 190 1988 467,471,4 20 IPC Bhaurao Ghodeswar Govindrao Ghodeswar 40 Bezanbag PS Pachpaoli, 8. On hearing the learned Advocates for the parties at length and by considering the material on record, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for invoking the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of Sanapareddy 4 Maheedhar Seshagiri and anr. .v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, reported in 2008 Cri.L.J. 1375 that if there is adequate material against the accused, the High Court should be extremely slow in invoking the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 9. There is no illegality in the investigation. The material which is collected in support of commission of the offence alleged against the applicant, do not warrant any interference in the matter at the hands of this Court. In the result, the application is rejected and disposed of. JUDGE Diwale