1 Cri.Appln.No.3333/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3333/2010 Sahebrao s/o Baburao Bhange Age:53 Yrs., occ. Service, R/o Chandekasar, Tq.Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar. = PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra. 2) The Superintendent of Police Ahmednagar, Dist.Ahmednagar. 3) Radhaji s/o Gangadhar Hon Age:50 Yrs., occ.Agril. R/o Chandekasar, Tq.Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar. = RESPONDENTS Mr.K.S.Bhore, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for Resp.Nos.1 & 2; Mr.C.A.Jadhav,Advocate h/for Mr.N.D.Sonawane, Advocate for Respondent No.3 ----- CORAM : A.H.JOSHI & A.R.JOSHI,JJ. DATE : 27th September, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: A.H.JOSHI,J.) 1) Rule. 2 Cri.Appln.No.3333/2010 2) Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 3) The petitioner herein seeks quashment of F.I.R. registered in pursuance of a complaint lodged by complainant – Radhaji Gangadhar Hon (present Respondent No.3) before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kopargaon. 4) Heard both sides. 5) Perused the F.I.R. 6) The offences alleged, on which the crime has been registered against the petitioner, are under Sections 201, 217, 218, 417, 420, 423, 426, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 7) Perusal of the complaint discloses certain grievances, which when summerized, would mean as follows:- (a) The accused persons have record with them. In spite thereof, they are not giving the entire record. (b) Intention of the accused persons, in not giving the record, is dishonest and amounting to cheating. 3 Cri.Appln.No.3333/2010 (c) The manner in which the accused have supplied the information is false and misleading. (d) The accused are guilty of misappropriation and fabrication of record and, therefore, they have committed the offences. 8) The contents of the complaint are totally silent as to fact of the matter as to how cheating has occurred and which evidence is destroyed. 9) The FIR cannot be registered on a complaint, seeking fishy inquiry into the suspicion. The FIR has to be registered only when commission of cognizable offence is described and not when it is deficient. 10) In the result, we are satisfied that the crime, subject matter, should not have been registered, being totally deficient of description of ingredients of offences mentioned.. 11) We, therefore, allow this application and make the Rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). 4 Cri.Appln.No.3333/2010 12) The FIR bearing Crime No.I-181/2010, registered against the petitioner at Kopargaon Police Station, District Ahmednagar, for the offences under Sections 201, 217, 218, 417, 420, 423, 426, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.H.JOSHI,J.) bdv/