Haribhau Dnyandev Chemte v. The State of Maharashtra

1. Heard Mr. Talekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants, Mr. Metkari, learned APP appearing for the Respondent No.1-State and Mr. Mohite, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Intervenor/First Informant.

2. This application is filed seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.152 of 2025 registered with Vimantal Police Station, Pune for the offence punishable under Sections 246, 318, 337, 339, 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

3. Mr. Talekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant raised the following submissions: i. Learned Counsel submitted that Vimantal Police Station, Pune has no jurisdiction to lodge the F.I.R.. Learned Counsel pointed out the order dated 5th March 2025 passed by a learned Single Judge and submitted that as a learned Single Judge has issued direction to the (Registrar Judicial-I) to make an enquiry in respect of forged and fabricated hand written order of JMFC, Pune, produced before this Court and lodge FIR against the persons involved in it and therefore no other FIR can be lodged. He pointed out order dated 21st April 2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.2134 of 2022 filed by the present Applicant along with Contempt Petition No.204 of 2025 and Interim Application No.2960 of 2022. By the said order dated 21st April 2025 a learned Single Judge has directed the learned lodge the FIR. Learned Counsel submits that in view of the said directions and lodging of the FIR by the registry of the High Court, the Vimantal Police Station, Pune has no jurisdiction to register the FIR. ii. Learned Counsel submits that in fact, an attempt has been made by the Complainant to file the FIR with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Pune where the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune (“JMFC”) is situated. However, Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Pune has refused to lodge the FIR. iii. Learned Counsel submits that in fact, learned 15th Jt. JMFC, Pune by order dated 25th February 2025 passed below Exhibit-88 in RCC No.3466 of 2023 held that as the alleged forged order is produced before the Bombay High Court, the appropriate authority would be Bombay High Court for lodging the FIR. He therefore, submits that lodging of FIR by the Complainant with the Vimantal Police Station, Pune is for the mala fide purpose and in any case without jurisdiction and therefore, the Applicant is entitled for prearrest bail. iv. Learned Counsel submits that as per Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), no Court shall take congnizance of any offence inter alia punishable under Sections 246 (as per Section 215(1)(b)(i) of BNSS) and of Section 340 (as per Section 215(1)(b)(ii) of BNSS) except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. v. Learned Counsel also pointed out Interim Application filed by the Complainant in this Court and submitted that even it is the contention of the Complainant that the record of the said RCC No.3466 of 2023 or connected matters has not been kept properly. vi. Learned Counsel submitteed that, as and when called by the Police, the Applicant has attended the Police Station and cooperated with the investigation. vii.Learned Counsel also relied on the following decision of the Supreme Court to substantiate his contentions: i. Bandekar Brothers Private Limited vs. Prasad Vassudev Keni[1] ii. Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India[2] iii. Amish Devgan vs. Union of India[3] iv. Tarak Dash Mukharjee vs. State of Uttar Pradesh[4] v. Kapil Agarwal vs. Sanjay Sharma[5] viii. Learned Counsel submitted that Mr. Atharva R. Bhingardive, learned Advocate had not been instructed to produce said order of learned JMFC before this Court in said Anticipatory Bail Application No.2134 of 2022. However,

4. On the other hand, Mr. Mohite, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Complainant/First Informant has raised the following contentions: i. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the FIR in C.R. No.142 of 2022 registered with Vimantal Police Station, Pune is different and distinct than C.R. No.152 of 2025 registered with Vimantal Police Station, Pune. He submitted that the only connection between these two FIRs is that to get benefit in FIR No.142 of 2022, an order purported to have been passed by the learned JMFC, Pune has been forged and fabricated and the said order is used at the hearing of the Anticipatory Bail Application filed in the High Court concerning C.R. No.142 of 2022. However, he submits that the intention in preparing the said forged and fabricated order, purpoted to have been passed by the learned JMFC, Pune is not limited to the extent of producing the same in the Anticipatory Bail Application, but the intention is to get completely exonerated in C.R. No. 142 of 2022 registered with Vimantal Police Station. ii. Learned Senior Counsel submits that as far as C.R. No.78 of 2025 which has been lodged at Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai by the registry of the Bombay High Court and the subject FIR i.e. C.R. No.152 of 2025 there is some similarity, however, the distinction is that C.R. No.78 of 2025 has been registered with Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai as the forged and fabricated order purported to have been passed by the learned JMFC, Pune has been actually produced before the learned Single Judge (Coram: Prithviraj K. Chavan, J.) in Anticipatory Bail Application No.2134 of 2022 filed by the present Applicant and on the basis of the same, the said learned Single Judge has passed the order dated 17th January 2025 and as far as subject FIR No.152 of 2025 lodged at Vimantal Police Station, Pune is concerning the said forged and fabricated order has been prepared for the purpose of using the same in all the proceedings concerning FIR No.142 of 2022 which has been lodged at Vimantal Police Station, Pune. iii. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in fact, although there are some similarities or some of the factual aspects are identical in the FIR which has been lodged by the registry of the Bombay High Court and subject FIR No.152 of 2025, however, there is distinction between both of them as set out herein above. iv. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in any case, finally both these FIRs can be merged together in one criminal case, if the Court ultimately passes the order to that effect. However the same cannot be done at this stage when the investigation is in progress. v. As far as the contention that the Applicant is not beneficiary of the forged and fabricated order, he submitted that the said order dated 17th January 2025 passed by a learned Single Judge (Coram: Prithviraj K. Chavan, J.) makes specific reference to the said forged and fabricated order and on the basis of that, Anticipatory Bail Application No.2134 of 2022 has been disposed of. Thus, he submits that the Applicant is beneficiary of the said order. In that context, he pointed out the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Navin Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 6 and submitted that once prima facie it is found that the Applicant is beneficiary of such forged /manipulated Court order and having taken advantage of the said order thereafter, it is not for the Applicant to contend that the said forged and fabricated order has been prepared by the Advocate Tushar Chavan and further that Advocate Atharva Bhingardive has not been instructed to submit the said order in the High Court. Learned Senior Counsel submits that these contentions raised are totally false. vi. As far as the contention raised that the FIR can be lodged only by the concerned Court, he submits that Section 215 of the BNNS will have application only if the offence is committed with respect to the document after it has been produced in any Court or given in evidence in any Court i.e. during the time when the document is in custodia legis. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in the present case, forged and fabricated order of the learned JMFC, Pune is prepared and the same is produced before the High Court. However, as the said order which has been prepared is not part of the Court record, in the sense, the learned JMFC, Pune has not passed the said order and forgery in such order passed by learned JMFC has not taken place, the subject order cannot be custodia legis as the same is not part of the record of the learned JMFC, Pune. He submits that therefore, Section 215 of the BNSS will have no application. To substantiate said contention, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah vs.. vii.As far as the contention raised regarding territorial jurisdiction, learned Senior Counsel has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)8 and more particularly on paragraph 10 of the same and submitted that where cognisable offence is disclosed and a case which requires investigation, the police officer cannot refuse to record the FIR and/or investigate it, on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and if

8 (1999) 8 SCC the Investigating Officer arrives at the conclusion after investigation that the crime was not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the police station, then the FIR can be forwarded to the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which the crime is committed. He submits that as the crime has been committed for the purpose of getting proceedings in FIR No.142 OF 2022 closed, prima facie, Vimantal Police Station, Pune has jurisdiction to deal with the concerned FIR i.e. C.R. No.152 of 2025 and in the course of the investigation if it is found that some other police station has jurisdiction, then the FIR can be transferred to that police station. viii. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the offence is very serious and therefore, custodial interrogation of the Applicant is necessary.

5. Mr. Metkari, learned APP submitted that the offence is very serious where the allegation is that forged and fabricated order of the learned JMFC, Pune has been prepared and therefore, the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is necessary.

6. Before considering the submissions advanced by all the learned Counsel, it is necessary to set out certain factual aspects:i. From 5th February 2016 to 1st November 2017 the present Applicant was working in CTR Manufacturing Industries Pvt. Ltd. (“CTR”). ii. The Senior Manager of CTR is the Complainant/First Informant in subject C.R. No.152 of 2025 concerning the present Anticipatory Bail Application No.1516 of 2025. iii. The EMR Tab Changers Pvt. Ltd. (“EMR”) is according to the submission of Mr. Talekar, learned Counsel is rival company of CTR. The Applicant joined EMR as Deputy Sales Manager on 2nd January 2019. iv. C.R. No.142 of 2022 has been registered with Vimantal Police Station, Pune by Vitthal Bhagwan Jadhav, Senior Manager of CTR under Sections 381, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The prosecution case in said C.R. No.142 of 2022 is that the Applicant was erstwhile employee of CTR and employed in Quality Control Department. The said CTR company is manufacturing Nitrogen Injection Fire Prevention System, which is patented product of CTR. It is the allegation that the Applicant provided the diagrams of the said product to EMR by virtue of which EMR was successful in bidding for the tender/contract. The Applicant’s name was not mentioned in the FIR and his name was reflected in the supplementary statement of the First Informant. v. The Applicant filed Anticipatory Bail Application No.2134 of 2022 in this Court and has been granted interim protection by a learned Single Judge by order dated 10th August 2022. vi. On 28th July 2023, final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) was submitted in the Court of learned JMFC, Pune concerning the said C.R. No.142 of 2022. As per the said report, Chargesheet is filed against 6 Accused and as far as Applicant and two other Accused are concerned report under Section 169 of CrPC has been filed as the Investigating Officer was of the opinion that there is no sufficient evidence against the Applicant and said two Accused.

7. The above facts are set out as they are background facts and are part of the record. However, the above facts are not of much importance for the purpose of this Anticipatory Bail Application. The following factual aspects are most relevant for the purpose of this Anticipatory Bail Application:i. It is the prosecution case that the forged and fabricated order dated 13th December 2024 purported to have been passed by the learned JMFC was prepared. The said purported forged and fabricated order dated 13th December 2024 purported to have been passed by the learned JMFC, Pune is annexed at page 76 as Exhibit-F to the Anticipatory Bail Application. The said Page No.76 is scanned and reproduced herein below: The said forged and fabricated order dated 13th December 2024 reads as under:- “The I.O. has submitted the Report under sec 169 Cr.P.C. for accused Sachin Vetal, Haribhau Chemate and Ravikumar Ramaswamy. The notice has been issued to complainant on 30/01/2024. The complainant appeared in Court. But, did not filed Request Petition. Therefore, the Report u/s 169 of Cr.P.C. has been seen, filed and accepted. The bonds of the above mentioned accused stands cancelled.” (Emphasis added) The above purported order of the learned JMFC clearly shows that the above order is not intended to be used only for the purpose of producing the same before this Court in the pending Anticipatory Bail Application No.2134 of 2022 but the same is prepared for the purpose of ensuring that the criminal case arising out of CR No.142 of 2022 registered with Vimantal Police Station, Pune comes to an end. ii. The material on record shows that the said purported order is not passed by the learned JMFC, Pune. The said order has not been found in the record of the learned JMFC and the same is forged and the fabricated order. iii. The said forged and fabricated order has been produced before a learned Single Judge (Coram:Prithviraj K. Chavan, J.) by Mr. Atharva R. Bhingardive, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and on the basis of the said forged and fabricated order, a learned Single Judge has passed the following order on 17th January 2025: “IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2134 OF 2022 Haribhau Dnyandev Chemte … Applicant State of Maharashtra … Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2960 OF 2022 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2134 OF CTR Manufacturing Industries Pvt. Ltd. … Applicant / Intervenor IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Haribhau Dnyandev Chemte … Applicant State of Maharashtra … Respondent..... Mr. Atharva R. Bhingardive a/w Ms.Laher Shah, for the Applicant. Mr. P. H. Gaikwad, APP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. Manoj Mohite, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Amit Jajoo, Mr. Nirav Parmar, Mr. Aryan Deshmukh i/b Indus Law, for the Intervenor. Mr. Chetan D. Bhosale, PSI, Vimantal Police Station, Pune City, present. CORAM: PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 17th JANUARY, 2025. P.C. Learned Counsel for the applicant has tendered a hand written order of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune, passed on a report tendered by the Investigating Officer under Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The report indicates that there is no sufficient evidence against the accused Sachin Vetal, Haribhau Chemte and Ravikumar Rama Swamy and, therefore, report under Section 169 of Cr.P.C. came to be filed, which was accepted by the learned JMFC.

4 In view of the disposal of Anticipatory Bail Application, Interim Application No. 2960 of 2022 shall also stand disposed of. [PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.] ” iv. The Complainant i.e. CTR Manufacturing Industries Pvt. Ltd. has on or about 11th February 2025 filed Interim Application No.631 of 2025 in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.2134 of 2022 inter alia seeking cancellation of Anticipatory Bail granted to the present Applicant by recalling order dated 17th January 2025 and seeking that enquiry be directed on the ground that the order which has been produced by the Applicant purported to be of learned JMFC is forged and fabricated order. v. In the meanwhile, the Intervenor/original Complainant has filed application bearing Exhibit-88 in the Court of learned JMFC, Pune in RCC No.3466 of 2023 inter alia seeking directions to the Senior Police Inspector, Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Pune to register the FIR. The learned JMFC, Pune by order dated 25th February 2025 disposed of the said application bearing Exhibit-88 in RCC No.3466 of 2023. However, observations of the learned JMFC, Pune in the said February 2025 are relevant, which reads as under: “Ld. Council for the complainant produced the photocopy of alleged forged order dated 13/12/2024. After perusal of that order, it seems that, the said order is passed in the margin open space of last page of the final report filed on 28/07/2023. Perusal of the original final report more perticularly last page dated 28/07/2023 reveals that this court did not pass any such order dated 13/12/2024. The margin open space on last page of final report is blank. As such it is clarified that this court did not pass the alleged order dated 13/12/2024 on the final report. So far as request this court to recuse from this matter is concern, if the applicant wishes, he is at liberty to transfer this file to other court by making request to Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Court, Pune. So far as third request of FIR is concern, the alleged forged order is not produced before this court in this matter, the alleged forged order is produced before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. As such the appropriate authority would be Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The applicant even may independently lodge FIR in the concern police station alleging forgery of document. Hence, with these observations the present application is disposed of.” Thus, the learned JMFC, Pune has specifically found that the said forged and fabricated order has been purported to have been passed in the margin open space on last page of final report filed on 28th July 2023. Learned JMFC, Pune found that perusal of the original final report more particularly margin open space shows that the same is blank and the Court has specifically recorded that the Court has not passed any such order dated 13th December 2024. The margin open space on last page of the final report is blank. Learned JMFC, Pune further clarified that the Court has not passed any such alleged order dated 13th December 2024 on the final report. So far as the request of the Intervenor/Complainant that the FIR be lodged, the learned JMFC, Pune has observed that alleged forged order is produced before the High Court and therefore, appropriate authority for lodging FIR would be Bombay High Court. It has been further observed that even the First Informant/Complainant can independently lodged the FIR alleging forgery of document. vi. A learned Single Judge (Coram: Shivkumar Dige, J.) by order dated 5th March 2025 has recalled the order dated 17th January 2025 and vacated the interim anticipatory bail granted to the present Applicant and further directed the and fabricated hand written order of learned JMFC, Pune and produced before this Court and lodge FIR against the persons involved in it. The said order dated 5th March 2025 reads as under: “. By this Application, the Applicant-First Informant seeks cancellation of Anticipatory Bail granted to the Respondent (Original Applicant) on the ground that, the Respondent had tendered the order of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune(‘JMFC’ for short) before this Court showing that the learned Judge has accepted the report filed under Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘Cr.P.C’ for short) by the Investigating Officer indicating that, there is no sufficient evidence against the Respondent (Original Applicant).

2. It is contention of learned senior counsel for the Applicant that, on the basis of the report of JMFC, this Court (Coram: Prithviraj K. Chavan, J.) has disposed of the Anticipatory Bail Application filed by the Respondent (Original Applicant) but the order of JMFC produced before this Court was forged and fabricated. The learned JMFC has passed the order on 25th February 2025 observing that, the hand written order produced before this Court was forged and fabricated, hence, requested to allow the Application and recall the Anticipatory Bail Order granted to the Respondent. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that appropriate action be taken against the Respondent and direction be given to register FIR against the persons who are involved in it.

3. It is contention of learned counsel for Respondent No.1-Original Applicant that, the order of JMFC produced before this Court was not forged and fabricated. The said order was tendered by the concerned advocate on the instructions of his client. Learned counsel further submitted that, if this Court comes to the conclusion that the order of the JMFC is forged and fabricated, then this Court has to follow the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. V/s. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr.[9]

4. It is contention of learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant that, in the Affidavit tendered by the Respondent, he admits about enquiry to be conducted as provided in Cr.P.C. and also admits recall of the order. Hence, requested to pass appropriate order.

5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that, though learned Senior Counsel is stating that, the Respondent has admitted in his Affidavit about recall of the order but the Respondent has not admitted said fact.

6. The learned APP submitted that, action be taken against the culprit.

7. I have heard all learned counsel. Perused the order passed by this Court and order passed by the JMFC, Pune dated 25th February 2025.