Gujarat High Court
Manojbhai Hiralal Rupareliya vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 4 December, 2014
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
R/SCR.A/4701/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 4701 of 2014
With
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4772 of 2014
================================================================
MANOJBHAI HIRALAL RUPARELIYA....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PM LAKHANI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MRS R P LAKHANI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 04/12/2014
ORAL ORDER
1. Since the issues involved in the two captioned petitions are identical, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. By this application, the petitioneroriginal accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the First Information Report being C.R. No. I99/2014, registered with the Amreli City Police Station on 1st November, 2014, of the offence punishable under Sections 419, 468 and 471 Page 1 of 7 R/SCR.A/4701/2014 ORDER of the Indian Penal Code and for the contravention of Rule 10(4) of the Registration of the Newspapers Rule 1956, punishable under Rule 12 of the Registration of Newspaper (Central) Rules, 1956.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:
(a) The petitioner is an editor, publishes and owner of a local Newspaper, namely, "Amreli Express Daily"
as stated in his declaration for the registration of the Newspaper. He had declared that his news paper would be published and printed from Amreli, however, it was found that he was printing the newspaper at the Ajkal Press of Rajkot. On this short ground the Police thought fit to register the F.I.R. referred to above. It appears that the Police inspected a vehicle bearing registration No.GJ3Y309, carrying printed Newspapers and during the inspection, it was found that those were printed at Rajkot.
4. Mr. N.D. Nanavaty, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioneroriginal accused Page 2 of 7 R/SCR.A/4701/2014 ORDER vehemently submitted that the F.I.R. lodged by the respondent No.2, a police constable of Special Operation Group (SOG) is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Mr. Nanavaty submits that the First Information Report lodged against the accused is nothing but an outcome of the personal vendetta.
5. Mr. Nanavaty further submits that even if the entire case of prosecution is accepted to be true, the F.I.R. fails to disclose commission of any cognizable offence. Mr. Nanavaty submits that no case of forgery is made out.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Shah, the learned APP, has opposed this application submitting that the F.I.R. discloses commission of cognizable offence and should not be quashed. Mr. Shah submits that although the accused had declared in the declaration form, that he would be printing the newspaper at Amreli, yet it has been found that the same were being printed at Rajkot. His principal contention is that since the Newspapers were printed at Rajkot as against the statutory declaration made that they would be printed at Amreli, Page 3 of 7 R/SCR.A/4701/2014 ORDER the same would constitute a forgery.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the F.I.R. should be quashed.
8. I have no hesitation in accepting the submission canvassed on behalf of the accused that even if the entire case of the prosecution is accepted to be true, the same fails to disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Sections 419, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Let me assume for the moment that although the news papers were printed at Rajkot, yet it has been shown to have been printed at Amreli. At best, that would be a case of false recital on the news paper. It will not constitute a forgery as explained under Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as Section 468 is concerned, it speaks about forgery for the purpose of cheating. Therefore, forgery is the main offence and cheating is the ancillary offence. Once I come to the conclusion that there is no forgery, there is no question of committing cheating.
Page 4 of 7
R/SCR.A/4701/2014 ORDER
9. The above takes me to consider whether there is any breach of the provisions of the Registration of Newspaper (Central) Rule 1956, so as to constitute an offence under Section 19L of the Act, 1867 or Rule
12.
10. Mr. Shah has drawn my attention to Rule 10(4), which reads as under: "10. Certificate of Registration. - (4) The Certificate of Registration shall cease to be effective as soon as the declaration under which the newspaper is published becomes void or a nespaper is removed from the Register of Newspapers maintained by the Press Registrar."
11. According to him, the accused has committed contravention of the said Rule.
12. Rule 12 provides for penalty, which reads thus: "12. Penalty. - A contravention of any of the provisions of these rules shall be punishable, with fine which may extend to [one thousand rupees]."
13. The plain reading of Rule 12 would suggest that the same is punishable with fine which may extend to Rs.1000/.
14. The Criminal Procedure Code Schedule (2) provides Page 5 of 7 R/SCR.A/4701/2014 ORDER for classification of offence against other laws. If any offence is punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only, then, it is a non cognizable offence.
15. Section 155(4) of the code provides that where a case relates to two or more offences for which at least one of the same is a cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are not cognizable. Since I have taken the view that no case under the Indian Penal Code is made out, the F.I.R. deserves to be quashed so far as the IPC offences are concerned.
16. If that be so then for the investigation of a noncognizable offence the Police will have to obtain appropriate permission of the Magistrate having power to try such case.
17. In the result, both these applications are partly allowed. Both the F.I.Rs i.e. C.R. No. I99 of 2014, registered with Amreli City Police Station and the First Information Report being C.R. No. I100 of 2014, Page 6 of 7 R/SCR.A/4701/2014 ORDER registered with the Amreli City Police Station, Amreli, are hereby ordered to be quashed, so far as the offence punishable under Sections 419, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code are concerned. So far as the non cognizable offence is concerned, it is for the Police to take appropriate steps in that regard, in accordance with law.
18. At this stage, Mr. Nanavaty, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the accused has drawn my attention that all noncognizable offences are registered in a register maintained for noncognizable offence. If the Police wants to proceed against the accused so far the noncognizable offence is concerned, that it will have to first register it under the noncognizable register. However, so far as the present F.I.R.'s are concerned they are ordered to be quashed.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) Manoj Page 7 of 7