Bombay High Court
Priyank Rajesh Mehta And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 17 March, 2020
Author: Sadhana S. Jadhav
Bench: Sadhana S. Jadhav
4.apl.984.18.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 984 OF 2018
(under section 482)
Mr. Priyank Rajesh Mehta and Other ... Applicants
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
-------------------
Mr. Hemant Vinayak Kenjalkar a/w. Ms. Minal Kamble for the
applicants.
Ms. P.P. Shinde-APP for the State.
---------------------
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J
DATED : 17th MARCH 2020.
P.C. :
. This an application under section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The applicant herein takes an exception to the
order dated 24th April 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Greater Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No. 725 of 2016.
2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:-
. The applicant no.2 happens to be wife of the applicant
no.1. That the applicants are running a partnership firm in the name
and style of M/s. Sun World Corporation, a firm engaged in the
business of Jewellery designing and consultancy. The applicant no. 2 is
said to be a sleeping partner of the said firm.
varsha 1 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2020 06:32:29 :::
4.apl.984.18.doc
3. On 30th May 2012 Suresh Dhumal, working as a sales tax
officer, lodged a report at Byculla Police Station against the applicants
alleging therein, that the applicants are running a partnership firm.
That they had filed an application for obtaining a fresh Tax
Identification Number (TIN) on 15th February 2012. The said
application was filed online. It was clear that they are running the said
firm from their residence. Applicant No. 1 was summoned from the
sales tax office on 16th February 2012 to verify correctness and
genuineness of the contents of the the application which was filed
online.
4. On 17th February 2012 at about 3.00 p.m. the applicant
no.1 had been to the sales tax office along with Vijaykumar (Chartered
Accountant of the said firm). Mr. Priyank Mehta had submitted a
relevant document for obtaining the benefits under the provisions of
sales tax rules. He had verified the documents in the presence of the
complainant.
5. That since the applicants were dealing in jewellery
business, from their residential house. The sales tax officers had been
to the house on 12th March 2012. They had verified the "No Objection
Certificate" dated 3rd February 2012 purportedly signed by the
grandfather of the applicant no. 1, and it had transpired that the said
no objection certificate is a sham document. That the said document
was bearing the signature of Navinchandra Mehta, who happened to
the grandfather of the applicant no.1. In the course of verification it
varsha 2 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2020 06:32:29 :::
4.apl.984.18.doc
had transpired that Mr. Navinchandra Mehta had expired on 6th April
2006 and therefore, it was clear that he could not have signed the 'No
Objection Certificate" on 3rd February 2012. It was clear that it was a
forged and fabricated document.
6. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 151 of 2012 was
registered against the applicants for the offences punishable under
section 420, 465, 468, 471 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. After
completion of investigation the charge-sheet was filed on 20 th July
2012.
7. The applicant herein had filed a discharge application
before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, seeking discharge from
the said case. It was contended that the papers of investigation do not
indicate any offence against the present applicants. It was their
contention before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate that
Navinchandra Mehta had signed a "No Objection Certificate" and had
handed it over to the Chartered Accountant for submitting to the office
and to be used whenever required in future.
8. It was also submitted that the same was inadvertently
furnished by the staff of Chartered Accountant before the sales tax
officer after the death of Navinchandra Mehta. Needless to say that this
is a false defence raised in the discharge application. The learned
Metropolitan Magistrate had rightly rejected the application on 24 th
April 2016.
varsha 3 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2020 06:32:29 :::
4.apl.984.18.doc
9. Being aggrieved by the said order the applicants herein had
filed Criminal Revision Application No. 725 of 2016 before the Court of
Sessions. The learned Sessions Court had observed, that the findings
recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate did not call for any
interference, as justifiable reasons, have been assigned by the
Magistrate.
10. Hence, this application.
11. Perused the papers of investigation. It is clear that the
applicant no. 2 had no active role to play in the commission of forgery
and fabrication of the documents, purportedly signed by the
grandfather of the applicant no.1. That she was a sleeping partner, of
the said firm and was not looking after the day to day affairs of the
firm. At the stage of verification of the document she was not present
before the sale tax officers. The applicant no. 1 had not only filed the
forged document but had also signed the verification of the said
document.
12. There is no role attributed to the applicant no. 2 except for
the fact that by virtue of being the wife of the applicant no.1, she was a
sleeping partner of M/s. Sun World Corporation. For want of cogent
and corroborative evidence, the proceedings as far as the applicant
no.2 concerned, deserves to be quashed. The act of forgery and
fabrication of the document is specifically attributed to the applicant
no.1.
varsha 4 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2020 06:32:29 :::
4.apl.984.18.doc
13. The learned counsel for the applicants at the threshold
submits that he is not pressing the application filed on behalf of the
applicant no.1. Hence, the said application filed on behalf of the
applicant no.1 is dismissed as withdrawn.
14. In view of the above discussion, the following order is
passed:
ORDER
I) The application is partly allowed and disposed of.
II) The proceedings in CC No. 842/PW/2012 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 25 th Court Mazgaon at Sewree, Mumbai are quashed qua the applicant no.2 i.e. Mrs. Shwetal Priyank Mehta.
(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)
varsha 5 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2020 06:32:29 :::