AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels for the parties.
The present application is filed by the applicants under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for quashing First Information Report (FIR) No. 462/2024 registered with Police Station Badnera, Dist. Amravati City for the offences punishable under Sections 471, 468, 465, 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and consequent Charge-sheet No.164/2026 bearing RCC No.863/2026 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Amravati.
The brief facts of the case, as per the FIR, are as under:-
The complaint was lodged on 30.07.2026 by PSI- Tushar Rajendra Gawande, attached to Police Station, Badnera. The FIR alleged that on 27.04.2024, at around 14:48 hours, when the complainant was on patrolling duty with his colleague, they intercepted a Ashok Leyland Truck having Regional Transport Office (RTO) Registration No. CG-07-CG-1594 bearing Engine No. HAEZ205291 and Chassis No. MB1A2GCD8HRAT8889, which was being driven by applicant no.1. The Police asked applicant no.1 to show the documents of the truck however, since the truck’s documents were not available with applicant no.1, hence the Police detained the said truck. On 03.07.2024, the Police visited the office of J.N.P. Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd. (for short, “the Company”) and obtained the documents of the said truck.
ii) On inspection of the said papers, it was revealed that the detained truck was using RTO Registration No. CG-07-CG-1594 instead of its original RTO Registration No. WB-25-H-1679. It was also revealed that the truck bearing RTO Registration No. CG-07-CG-1594 contains Engine No. NMHZ400255 and Chassis No. MB1A3GCD6NRMU1095 and it belonged to another truck of the Company where the applicants were working. Therefore, it was alleged that on 27.04.2024, applicant no. 1 was driving the truck having forged registration number originally belonging to the other truck of the Company of the applicants. Therefore, the aforesaid offence came to be registered against the applicants. After the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed in the said crime.
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and gone through the record.
The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant no. 1 is a driver and applicant no. 2 is the Manager of the Company and neither of them are the owner of the said truck. According to him, even if the allegations are admitted that on 27.04.2024, the Ashok Leyland truck was being driven by affixing registration number of another truck owned by the Company instead of the its original registration number, no offence whatsoever punishable under Sections 471, 468, 465, 420 r/w. 34 of the IPC are made out. Therefore, seeks quashing of the FIR and consequent proceedings.
The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State vehemently submitted that on 27.04.2024, the said truck being driven was having Engine No. HAEZ205291 and Chassis No. MB1A2GCD8HRAT8889 and was bearing Registration No. CG-07-CG-1594 which belongs to another truck of the Company. According to him, the original registration number of the said truck is WB-25-H-1679 and that to was registered later on with the RTO. According to him, the applicants affixed the number plate of a different truck on the truck which was intercepted therefore, it amounts to forgery and sought rejection of the application.
In the present case, applicant no.1 was driving the vehicle with the number plate of some other vehicle belonging to the same Company. The charge-sheet does not show any thing by which it can be said that the applicants plied the truck with number plate of other truck of their Company with intent to cause any damage or injury to anybody. The allegation that the said truck which was intercepted was later on registered. Thus, the case appears to be of running the truck without registration. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the case in hand is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Bench in the case of Mahesh Mehervan Havewall Vs. The State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition No.1870/2019, D/o. 02.08.2019]. The learned APP fairly conceded that the case in hand is identical to the case of Mahesh Mehervan Havewall (supra).
After going through the decision in case of Mahesh Mehervan Havewall (supra), it appears that the facts of the present case are identical to the fact in the case of Mahesh Mehervan Havewall (supra). The relevant para i.e. para no. 4 is reproduced below:-
“4.We have perused the FIR and the relevant sections of the IPC under which the present petitioner has been charged. It is not in dispute and admitted by the petitioner himself that he was driving the vehicle with the number plate of his old car and he has admitted that he has not obtained the registration for the Sunny Nissan car. Running a vehicle in public place without registration is an offence under the purview of the Motor Vehicle Act and, in particular, Section 192 of the said Act which makes an act of using the vehicle without registration punishable with a fine which may extent to Rs.5,000/-. However, we are not ready to accept the contention of Dr. Shaikh that the petitioner had indulged himself into an act of forgery since the definition of forgery as contained in Section 463 of the IPC makes abundantly clear that basic elements of forgery are making of a false document and such making should be with an intention as specified in Section 463 of the IPC to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person or to support any claim or title, or cause any person to part with property or, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or for commission of fraud.”
Thus, the present case is squarely covered by the above-said decision of the Division Bench of this Court.
Therefore, I find support to the argument of learned counsel for the applicants that basic elements of forgery i.e. intention to cause damage or injury or causing any person to part or enter property or to enter into any expressed contract are missing in the case. The case in hand is not about making false document. Even if submission of the learned APP for the State is to be considered that on the day of incident, the truck was not registered, at the most the case comes under the provisions of Section 192 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for running a truck without a legal and proper registration number and not under the provisions of the IPC.
As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], with regards to the principles of law relating to the exercise of extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR, it has held that such powers can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In para no. 102 of the decision, broad principles are laid down by their Lordships where such power under Section 226 of the Constitution of India/Section 482 of the CrPC/Section 528 of the BNSS should be exercised, which are as under:-
“102.In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1)Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2)Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4)Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
Therefore, a case is made out for exercising the inherent powers of this Court for quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-
The application is allowed.
ii) FIR No. 462/2024 registered with Police Station Badnera, Dist. Amravati City for the offences punishable under Sections 471, 468, 465, 420 r/w. 34 of the IPC and consequent Charge-sheet No.164/2026 bearing RCC No.863/2026 pending on the file of the JMFC, Amravati are hereby quashed qua the applicants.
iii) Rule is made absolute in the above-said terms.