AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.L. Pangarkar, J.—Rule returnable forthwith.
Heard finally with the consent of parties.
This is an application u/s 340 of the Indian Penal Code.
A few facts may be narrated thus:
Applicant was Vice President of Ashok Shikshan Sanstha, Gondia Non applicants were associated with the Society and had no administrative control over it, yet it is alleged that they misappropriated large funds of the Society by forging certain documents. The applicant, therefore, lodged a report with the police. The police registered an offence. The non applicants, therefore, filed an application u/s 482 before this Court praying to quash the F.I.R. and also sought protection from arrest. It was alleged in that application that no other application claiming such relief and with regard to same subject matter was filed in any other Court. However, the non applicants had filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge Gondia being Application No. 205/06 on 27-11-06. It is contended that even though this application No 205/06 was filed at Gondia on 27-11-06 no reference was made to it in Application u/s 482 of Criminal Procedure Code before the High Court being Application No. 3849/06. It is contended that this suppression and making declaration that no other application is filed was patently false statement on oath and as such offence as stated in Section 193 Criminal Procedure Code is committed and therefore a complaint should be lodged against the non applicants.
Application u/s 482 before this Court was filed on 29-11-2006 while the anticipatory bail application at Gondia was filed on 27-11-06 is not disputed. It is also not disputed that application u/s 482 does contain the declaration that no other application claiming such relief is filed in this Court or the Supreme Court. I reproduce here para 12:
The applicants have not filed any petition, application in the same subject matter either before this Hon''ble Court or the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India any time before.
The declaration therefore is that no other petition before High Court or Supreme Court is filed. There is no declaration that it is not so filed in other Court. Apparently, therefore, there is no false statement as such.
Further the application before the High Court was for quashing the F.I.R. and one at Gondia was essentially for anticipatory bail. The main relief before this Court was quashing of F.I.R. and till quashing of F.I.R. only protection from arrest was sought. No anticipatory bail was claimed here. Protection to arrest was consequential relief. The application before this Court not being an application for anticipatory bail, the statement in para 12 could not be said to be false at all. Shri Mehta had contended that as soon as Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail the application u/s 482 was withdrawn and therefore the main object of the non applicants was to evade arrest. Such an inference cannot be drawn. The application was withdrawn on 9-3-07 while anticipatory bail was granted on 2-12-06. Thus it was withdrawn after 3 months and not immediately. Shri Mehta had cited one decision of this Court in Godrej and Boyee Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. The Union of India and Ors. 1992 C LJ 3752. I need not go into the ratio of this case since I find that no false statement on oath is made. Application is, therefore, rejected.