{"id":253642,"date":"2010-01-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2010"},"modified":"2017-12-15T01:20:31","modified_gmt":"2017-12-14T19:50:31","slug":"prabhakar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Prabhakar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Prabhakar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: P. R. Borkar<\/div>\n
                                       (1)\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           \n               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n                 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 849 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n    Prabhakar s\/o. Ramchandra Patki                         ..       Petitioner\n    Age. 53 years, Occ. Service as Chief\n    Officer, Municipal Council, Vengurla,\n    Tal. Vengurla, Dist. Sindhudurg.\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n                          ig           Versus\n\n\n    1.   The State of Maharashtra                           ..       Respondents\n                        \n    2.   Yadavrao s\/o. Mukundrao Nemaniwar\n         Age. 66 years, Occ. Business,\n         R\/o. Yelmapura, Tal. Kinwat,\n         Dist. Nanded.\n       \n\n\n    Shri P.V. Mandlik, Sr. Advocate i\/b. Adv. Shri A.S. Gandhi, \n    \n\n\n\n    Advocate for the petitioner.\n    Mrs. B.R. Khekale, A.P.P. for respondent No.1.\n    Shri S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for respondent No.2.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                             CORAM :        P.R. BORKAR,J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                             DATED :        28.01.2010\n\n    ORAL JUDGMENT :-\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    1.         This   is   a   writ   petition   preferred   by   the   original <\/p>\n
    accused\/revision   petitioner   against   whom   the   order   of <\/p>\n
    issuance   of   process   was   passed   by   the   learned   Judicial <\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:33:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                          (2)<\/span><\/p>\n
    Magistrate, First Class, Kinwat in S.C.C. No. 81 of 2008 for <\/p>\n
    committing offences punishable under sections 193<\/a> and 199<\/a> of <\/p>\n
    the Indian Penal Code (For short “I.P.C<\/a>.”).  Said order dated <\/p>\n
    01.08.2008 is further confirmed in Criminal Revision No. 163 <\/p>\n
    of 2008 decided on 14.08.2009 by the Sessions Judge, Nanded.\n<\/p>\n
    2.          Briefly   stated   facts   giving   rise   to   this   petition <\/p>\n
    may be stated as below :-\n<\/p>\n
    .           Present   respondent   No.2   –   Yadavrao   Nemaniwar   was <\/p>\n
    the complainant. It is stated that the complainant\/respondent <\/p>\n
    No.2   was   Vice   President   of   the   Municipal   Council,   Kinwat;\n<\/p>\n
    whereas the petitioner\/accused was working as a Chief Officer <\/p>\n
    of   the   Municipal   Council,   Kinwat   between   March,   2006   to <\/p>\n
    August, 2007.   Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred as <\/p>\n
    Chief   Officer   to   Vengurla,   Dist.   Sindhudurg.     Regular   Civil <\/p>\n
    Suit   No.   48   of   2007   was   filed   by   Samgayani   –   daughter   of <\/p>\n
    Yadavrao   Nemaniwar   (complainant\/respondent   No.2)   against   the <\/p>\n
    present   petitioner   seeking   perpetual   injunction   restraining <\/p>\n
    him   from   demolishing   property   of   said   Samgayani.     The   suit <\/p>\n
    was   fixed   on   26.07.2007   for   filing   written   statement.\n<\/p>\n
    However,   since   the   petitioner\/defendant   in   that   suit   was <\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:33:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                          (3)<\/span><\/p>\n
    absent,   an   order   was   passed   to   proceed   the   suit   without <\/p>\n
    written statement.  Thereafter, on 30.07.2007, the petitioner <\/p>\n
    filed application Exh.14 in Regular Civil Suit No. 48 of 2007 <\/p>\n
    along   with   affidavit   dated   30.07.2007   (Exh.15)   stating <\/p>\n
    therein   that   on   26.07.2007,   he   could   not   file   written <\/p>\n
    statement   as   he   was   at   Aurangabad   to   attend   High   Court   and <\/p>\n
    prayed   for   setting   aside   the   order   of   proceeding   the   suit <\/p>\n
    without   written   statement   passed   on   26.07.2007.     The   Court <\/p>\n
    was   pleased   to   set   aside   the   order   of   proceeding   the   suit <\/p>\n
    without written statement.   It is stated that the statement <\/p>\n
    that   on   26.07.2007   the   petitioner   was   at   Aurangabad   for <\/p>\n
    attending   High   Court,   was   a   false   statement   and   in   the <\/p>\n
    circumstances he committed the offences.\n<\/p>\n
    3.          The   learned   Magistrate   recorded   verification   of <\/p>\n
    present   respondent   No.2   on   01.08.2008   and   passed   order   as <\/p>\n
    follows :-\n<\/p>\n
                            “The complainant has made out prima facie
\n                case   to   issue   process   u\/s   193   and   199   of   IPC<\/a>.
\n                Hence   issue   process   against   accused   u\/s   193   &   199
\n                of IPC<\/a>.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:33:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                         (4)<\/span><\/p>\n
    4.          Present petitioner  filed  Criminal  Revision  No.  163 <\/p>\n
    of 2008 in the Sessions Court, Nanded, challenging the order <\/p>\n
    of   issuance   of   process.     The   main   challenge   was   that <\/p>\n
    respondent No.2 had no locus standi and cognizance could not <\/p>\n
    have   been   taken   of   the   offence,   as   the   complaint   was   not <\/p>\n
    filed as required by section 195<\/a> (1) (b) (i) of the Code<\/a> of <\/p>\n
    Criminal   Procedure   (Cr.P.C<\/a>).     The   learned   Sessions   Judge <\/p>\n
    relying   upon   case   of  Iqbal   Singh   Marwah   and   anr.   V\/s.\n<\/p>\n
    Meenakshi Marwah and ors, AIR 2005, S.C. 2119, rejected the <\/p>\n
    Criminal   Revision.   Against   the   same   this   writ   petition   is <\/p>\n
    filed.\n<\/p>\n
    5.          Heard Sr. Advocate Shri P.V. Mandlik i\/b. Adv. Shri <\/p>\n
    A.S. Gandhi for the petitioner, A.P.P. Mrs. B.R. Khekale for <\/p>\n
    respondent   No.1\/State   and   Adv.   Shri   S.M.   Vibhute   for <\/p>\n
    respondent No.2.\n<\/p>\n
    6.          Rule.     Rule   made   returnable   forthwith.     With <\/p>\n
    consent  of   the   learned   advocates   appearing   for   the   parties, <\/p>\n
    the matter is taken up for final hearing immediately.\n<\/p>\n
    7.          In   this   case   what   is   alleged   is   that   in   the <\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:33:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                         (5)<\/span><\/p>\n
    application Exh.14 and affidavit Exh.15, copies of which are <\/p>\n
    enclosed   with   the   petition,   it   is   falsely   mentioned   by   the <\/p>\n
    petitioner that on 26.07.2007, which was earlier date fixed, <\/p>\n
    he could not file written statement as he was at Aurangabad, <\/p>\n
    to attend High Court.  According to respondent No.2, this was <\/p>\n
    false statement and therefore offences under sections 193<\/a> and <\/p>\n
    199<\/a> of the I.P.C. are committed.  Order on application Exh.14 <\/p>\n
    clearly   shows   that   the   Court   was   pleased   to   set   aside   the <\/p>\n
    order   of   “No   W.S.”   and   written   statement   was   accepted.\n<\/p>\n
    Section 193<\/a> and 199<\/a> of the I.P.C. are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                             “S.193.  Whoever intentionally gives false <\/p>\n
                evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or
\n                fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being <\/p>\n
                used   in   any   stage   of   a   judicial   proceeding,   shall
\n                be punished with imprisonment of either description
\n                for   a   term   which   may   extend   to   seven   years,   and
\n                shall also be liable to fine;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                             and   whoever   intentionally   gives   or
\n                fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall
\n                be punished with imprisonment of either description
\n                for   a   term   which   may   extent   to   three   years,   and
\n                shall also be liable to fine.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                             S.199. Whoever, in any declaration made or
\n                subscribed   by   him,   which   declaration   any   Court   of
\n                Justice, or any public servant or other person, is
\n                bound   or   authorized   by   law   to   receive   as   evidence
\n                of   any   fact,   makes   any   statement   which   is   false,
\n                and which he  either knows or believes to be false <\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:33:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                          (6)<\/span><\/p>\n
                or does not believe to be true, touching any point
\n                material to the object for which the declaration is <\/p>\n
                made  or used  shall  be punished  in the same manner
\n                as if he gave false evidence.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    8.          It is also argued by Sr. Adv. Shri Mandlik that in <\/p>\n
    this case, the stage was of acceptance of written statement <\/p>\n
    and   no   evidence   was   given   or   recorded.     The   affidavit   was <\/p>\n
    just in support of Exh.14 and in strict sense it was not a <\/p>\n
    part of oral evidence or deposition and therefore section 193<\/a> <\/p>\n
    of   the   I.P.C.   is   not   attracted.     It   is   not   said   that   the <\/p>\n
    affidavit is not signed by the petitioner or the petitioner <\/p>\n
    signed the affidavit or application in the name of some one <\/p>\n
    else.     It   is   not   a   case   of   giving   false   evidence   or <\/p>\n
    fabricating   false   evidence.     So,   it   is   argued   that   section <\/p>\n
    193<\/a> of the I.P.C. is not attracted.   I may refer to section <\/p>\n
    464<\/a>   of   I.P.C.   and   reproduce   it   for   ready   reference   to   show <\/p>\n
    that what is meant by making false document :-\n<\/p>\n
                            “S.464.   Making   a   false   document.   –   A
\n                person   is   said   to   make   a   false   document   or   false
\n                electronic record –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                            First.- Who dishonestly or fraudulently –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                          (a)   makes,   signs,   seals   or   executes   a
\n                document or part of a document;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:33:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                      (7)<\/span><\/p>\n
                       (b)   makes   or   transmit   any   electronic <\/p>\n
             record or part of any electronic record;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       (c)   affixes   any   electronic   signature   or
\n             any electronic record;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        (d) makes any mark denoting the execution
\n             of a document or the authenticity of the electronic
\n             signature,   with   the   intention   of   causing   it   to   be
\n             believed   that   such   document   or   part   of   document,
\n             electronic record or electronic signature was made, <\/p>\n
             signed,  sealed  executed,  transmitted   or  affixed  by
\n             or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose <\/p>\n
             authority   he   knows   that   it   was   not   made,   signed,
\n             sealed, executed or affixed; or<\/p>\n
             Secondly   –   Who,   without   lawful   authority, <\/p>\n
             dishonestly   or   fraudulently,   by   cancellation   or
\n             otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record
\n             in   any   material   part   thereof,   after   it   has   been
\n             made, executed or affixed with electronic signature
\n             either   by   himself   or   by   any   other   person,   whether <\/p>\n
             such person be living or dead at the time of such
\n             alteration; or <\/p>\n
             Thirdly – Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any
\n             person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or
\n             an   electronic   record   to   affix   his   electronic <\/p>\n
             signature or any electronic record knowing that such
\n             person   by   reason   of   unsoundness   of   mind   or
\n             intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception
\n             practised upon him, he does not know the contents of
\n             the document or electronic record or the nature of
\n             the alteration.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    .        So,   it   is   argued   and   I   agree   that   offence   under <\/p>\n
    section 193<\/a> of I.P.C. is not made out.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:33:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                         (8)<\/span><\/p>\n
    9.          The   learned   advocate   for   respondent   No.2   stated <\/p>\n
    that offence under section 199<\/a> of I.P.C. is committed because <\/p>\n
    false   declaration   was   made   in   the   affidavit   that   the <\/p>\n
    petitioner was at Aurangabad and therefore he could not file <\/p>\n
    written   statement   on   26.07.2007.     As   per   section   199<\/a>   of <\/p>\n
    I.P.C. the declaration made or subscribed to the accused is <\/p>\n
    to be received as evidence of any fact and in that angle the <\/p>\n
    affidavit was accepted in as much as the Court believed the <\/p>\n
    statement   made   by   the   petitioner   that   he   had   been   to <\/p>\n
    Aurangabad   on   26.07.2009   and   as   such   was   unable   to   file <\/p>\n
    written statement.  So, prima facie we can say that there is <\/p>\n
    the  material   for   issuing   process   for   the   offence   punishable <\/p>\n
    under   section   199<\/a>   of   I.P.C.,   though   the   petitioner   is   very <\/p>\n
    much   disputing   the   allegation   that   it   was   false   affidavit.\n<\/p>\n
    The   main   question   is   whether   the   Court   could   have   taken <\/p>\n
    cognizance of offence punishable under section 193<\/a> or 199 of <\/p>\n
    I.P.C<\/a>., in view of Section 195<\/a> of Cr.P.C..   I quote section <\/p>\n
    195<\/a> (1) of Cr.P.C<\/a>., which is as under :-\n<\/p>\n
                         “195 (1) No Court shall take cognizance –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         (a)   (i)   of   any   offence   punishable   under
\n               sections 172<\/a> to 188<\/a> (both inclusive) of the Indian
\n               Penal Code<\/a> (45 of 1860), or<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:33:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                         (9)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                          (ii)   of   any   abetment   of,   or   attempt   to
\n                commit, such offence, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                          (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit
\n                such offence, except on the complaint in writing of
\n                the public servant concerned or of some other public
\n                servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                             (b)   (i)   of   any   offence   punishable   under
\n                any   of   the   following   sections   of   the   Indian   Penal
\n                Code<\/a> (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193<\/a> to 196<\/a> (both
\n                inclusive),   199,   200,   205   to   211   (both   inclusive) <\/p>\n
                and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been
\n                committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in <\/p>\n
                any Court, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                           (ii)   of   any   offence   described   in   section
\n                463<\/a>, or punishable under section 471<\/a>, section 475<\/a> or <\/p>\n
                section 476<\/a>, of the said Code, when such offence is
\n                alleged   to   have   been   committed   in   respect   of   a
\n                document   produced   or   given   in   evidence   in   a
\n                proceeding in any Court, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                           (iii)   of   any   criminal   conspiracy   to
\n                commit,   or   attempt   to   commit,   or   the   abetment   of, <\/p>\n
                any   offence   specified   in   sub-clause   (i)   or   sub-
\n                clause (ii), <\/p>\n
                          except on the complaint in writing of that <\/p>\n
                Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court
\n                may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some
\n                other Court to which that Court is subordinate.  x x
\n                x x x x x x”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    10.         The   learned   advocate   for   respondent   No.2   Shri <\/p>\n
    Vibhute drew my attention to the case of  Iqbal Singh Marwah <\/p>\n
    (Supra).     In   that   case   as   para   2   indicates   the   Court   was <\/p>\n
    called   upon   to   resolve   conflict   of   opinion   between   two <\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:33:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                        ( 10 )<\/p>\n
    decisions   of   the   Supreme   Court,   each   rendered   by   Bench   of <\/p>\n
    three Judges in  Surjit Singh V\/s. Balbir singh, 1996 (3) SCC <\/p>\n
    533 and Sachida Nand Singh V\/s. State of Bihar, 1998 (2) SCC <\/p>\n
    493, regarding interpretation of section 195<\/a> (1) (b) (ii) of <\/p>\n
    Cr.P.C<\/a>.     As  stated   in   para   5   of  Iqbal  Singh   Marwah   (Supra) <\/p>\n
    the   principal   controversy   revolves   round   the   interpretation <\/p>\n
    of the expression ‘when such offence is alleged to have been <\/p>\n
    committed   in   respect   of   a   document   produced   or   given   in <\/p>\n
    evidence   in   a   proceeding   in   any   court’   occurring   in   clause <\/p>\n
    (b) (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 195<\/a> Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
    11.         In the case of  Surjit Singh (Supra)  it is observed <\/p>\n
    that for taking cognizance of an offence, the document, the <\/p>\n
    foundation of forgery, if produced before the Court or given <\/p>\n
    in evidence, the bar of taking cognizance under section 195<\/a> <\/p>\n
    (1)   (b)   (ii)   gets   attracted   and   the   criminal   court   is <\/p>\n
    prohibited   from   taking   cognizance   of   offence   unless   a <\/p>\n
    complaint in writing is filed as per the procedure prescribed <\/p>\n
    under section 340<\/a> of the Code by or on behalf of the Court.\n<\/p>\n
    The   object   thereby   is   to   preserve   purity   of   the <\/p>\n
    administration of justice and to allow the parties to adduce <\/p>\n
    evidence   in   proof   of   certain   documents   without   being <\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:33:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                       ( 11 )<\/p>\n
    compelled   or   intimidated   to   proceed   with   the   judicial <\/p>\n
    process.\n<\/p>\n
    12.        In   the   case   of  Sachida   Nand   Singh   (Supra),   scope <\/p>\n
    envisaged by section 340<\/a> (1) of the Code<\/a> to ascertain whether <\/p>\n
    any   offence   affecting   administration   of   justice   has   been <\/p>\n
    committed in respect of a document produced in Court or given <\/p>\n
    in evidence in a proceeding in that Court.   In other words, <\/p>\n
    the offence should have been committed during the time when <\/p>\n
    the document was in  custodia legis.   In para 6 of the said <\/p>\n
    case following observations are made :-\n<\/p>\n
                            “6. On a plain reading clause (b)(ii) of <\/p>\n
               sub-section   (1)   of   Section   195<\/a>   is   capable   of   two
\n               interpretations.   One   possible   interpretation   is
\n               that   when   an   offence   described   in   Section   463<\/a>   or
\n               punishable   under   Section   471<\/a>,   Section   475<\/a>   or <\/p>\n
               Section  476<\/a>  IPC  is   alleged  to  have  been  committed
\n               in   respect   of   a   document   which   is   subsequently
\n               produced   or   given   in   evidence   in   a   proceeding   in
\n               any   Court,   a   complaint   by   the   Court   would   be
\n               necessary.   The   other   possible   interpretation   is
\n               that when a document has been produced or given in <\/p>\n
               evidence   in   a   proceeding   in   any   Court   and
\n               thereafter   an   offence   described   as   aforesaid   is
\n               committed   in   respect   thereof,   a   complaint   by   the
\n               Court would be necessary. On this interpretation if
\n               the   offence   as   described   in   the   Section   is
\n               committed prior to production or giving in evidence
\n               of   the   document   in   Court,   no   complaint   by   Court
\n               would be necessary and a private complaint would be <\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:33:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                         ( 12 )<\/p>\n
                maintainable.   The   question   which   requires
\n                consideration   is   which   of   the   two   interpretations <\/p>\n
                should  be  accepted  having  regard   to  the  scheme   of
\n                the Act and object sought to be achieved.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    13.         After   considering   the   entire   position   including <\/p>\n
    earlier case-laws, the Supreme Court observed in para 25 of <\/p>\n
    the said case as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                           “25.   In   view   of   the   discussion   made <\/p>\n
                above,   we   are   of   the   opinion   that   Sachida   Nand
\n                Singh has been correctly decided and the view taken
\n                therein is the correct view. Section 195(1)(b)(ii)<\/a>
\n                Cr.P.C.   would   be   attracted   only   when   the   offences <\/p>\n
                enumerated   in   the   said   provision   have   been
\n                committed  with   respect  to  a  document  after  it  has
\n                been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding
\n                in any Court i.e. during the time when the document
\n                was in custodia legis.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    .           Thus   it   is   abundantly   clear   from   above   said <\/p>\n
    discussion   that   the   Court   was   discussing   and   interpreting <\/p>\n
    section   195<\/a>   (1)   (b)   (ii),   particularly   phrase   ‘when   such <\/p>\n
    offence   is   alleged   to   have   been   committed   in   respect   of   a <\/p>\n
    document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any <\/p>\n
    court’.\n<\/p>\n
    14.         The   learned   advocate   Shri   Vibhute   argued   that   in <\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:33:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                         ( 13 )<\/p>\n
    this   case   the   affidavit   was   prepared   and   then   filed   in   the <\/p>\n
    Court and therefore there is no bar in view of law laid down <\/p>\n
    in   the   case   of  Iqbal   Singh   Marwah   (Supra).     Same   line   of <\/p>\n
    argument   was   accepted   by   the   learned   Sessions   Judge,   Nanded <\/p>\n
    in   his   judgment.     If   we   consider   section   195<\/a>   (1)   (b)   (i), <\/p>\n
    which is reproduced earlier, we do not find phrase ‘when such <\/p>\n
    offence   is   alleged   to   have   been   committed   in   respect   of   a <\/p>\n
    document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any <\/p>\n
    court’.   It says that no Court shall take cognizance of any <\/p>\n
    offence punishable under section 193<\/a> to 196<\/a>, 199<\/a>, 200<\/a>, 205<\/a> to <\/p>\n
    211<\/a> (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to <\/p>\n
    have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in <\/p>\n
    any Court, except on the complaint in writing of that Court <\/p>\n
    or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in <\/p>\n
    writing in this behalf or of some other Court to which that <\/p>\n
    Court   is   sub-ordinate.     In   this   case,   question   is   not   when <\/p>\n
    the affidavit was signed or completed, question is not when <\/p>\n
    the application was signed, whether it was signed inside the <\/p>\n
    Court or outside the Court.  Since the application Exh.14 and <\/p>\n
    affidavit   Exh.15   are   filed   in   civil   proceedings   and   it   is <\/p>\n
    alleged   that   the   offence   is   committed   in   or   in   relation   to <\/p>\n
    making   false   statement   during   the   course   of   civil <\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:33:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                       ( 14 )<\/p>\n
    proceedings, in my considered opinion, bar of section 195<\/a> (1) <\/p>\n
    (b)   (i)   of   Cr.P.C<\/a>.   is   attracted   and   therefore   this   writ <\/p>\n
    petition must succeed.\n<\/p>\n
    15.        In   the   result,   the   order   of   issuance   of   process <\/p>\n
    passed   by   the   Judicial   Magistrate,   First   Class,   Nanded,   on <\/p>\n
    01.08.2008 in S.C.C. No. 81 of 2008 is hereby quashed and set <\/p>\n
    aside.   Similarly, the order passed by the Sessions Court in <\/p>\n
    Criminal Revision No. 163 of 2008 dated 14.08.2009 stands set <\/p>\n
    aside.\n<\/p>\n
    16.        The   Criminal   Writ   petition   is   accordingly   allowed <\/p>\n
    and rule made absolute.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  [P.R. BORKAR,J.]<\/p>\n
    snk\/2010\/JAN10\/crwp849.09<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:33:38 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Prabhakar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2010 Bench: P. R. Borkar (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 849 OF 2009 Prabhakar s\/o. Ramchandra Patki .. Petitioner Age. 53 years, Occ. Service as Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Vengurla, Tal. Vengurla, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-253642","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPrabhakar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prabhakar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-14T19:50:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prabhakar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-14T19:50:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2655,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Prabhakar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-14T19:50:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prabhakar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Prabhakar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prabhakar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-14T19:50:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prabhakar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-14T19:50:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2010"},"wordCount":2655,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2010","name":"Prabhakar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-14T19:50:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prabhakar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253642","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=253642"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253642\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=253642"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=253642"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=253642"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}