JUDGMENT Z. A. HAQ, J. :– Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against the applicant by the non-applicant no.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 193 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Crime No.132 of 2012. 4. It is the case of the applicant that he is a businessman. According to him, proceedings No. 12 of 2012 were pending before the S.D.P.O. Gadchandur against him. On 1st of November, 2012, directions were issued to release the applicant on bail on furnishing a solvent surety. Thereafter, the applicant produced a solvent surety namely; Sau.Kalawati Ramdas Lande and provided a document of House Tax Receipt on which the name of Sau.Kalawati Ramdas Lande was mentioned and on that basis the applicant was released on bail. According to the applicant, after a few days, he had received a secret information that documents furnished by him for getting himself released on bail were fake and fraudulent and in that respect non-applicant no.2 lodged a complaint on the basis of which FIR No.132 of 2012 was registered. According to the applicant, he had obtained the said documents under the Right to Information Act, which were supplied by the Gram Panchayat Nanda, Tq. Korapana, Distt. Chandrapur, in which the name of Sau.Kalawati Ramdas Lande was mentioned along with the name of her husband – Ramdas Madhao Lande. The applicant has filed the copy of the Assessment List and the copy of the Tax Receipt which show the name of Sau. Kalawati Ramdas Lande. The submission on behalf of the applicant is that in such circumstances, no offence, as alleged in the FIR, is made out against him and the registration of the FIR is an abuse of the process of law. 5. The Non-applicant no.1 – State has filed reply in which it is mentioned that the statement of various witnesses like Puja Madavi, Bandu Varalkar, Mahendra Madke and Uday Nagrale have been recorded and they have stated that originally the name of Ramdas Lande was inserted as a owner in respect of House No.656 in the Gram Panchayat record. 5. The Non-applicant no.1 – State has filed reply in which it is mentioned that the statement of various witnesses like Puja Madavi, Bandu Varalkar, Mahendra Madke and Uday Nagrale have been recorded and they have stated that originally the name of Ramdas Lande was inserted as a owner in respect of House No.656 in the Gram Panchayat record. However, later on Sau.Kalawati Ramdas Lande approached one Devanand Ukey, who was temporary employee of Gram Panchayat, and from him she obtained a Tax Receipt in respect of House No.656 and got her name inserted fraudulently. In the reply, the Non-applicant no.1 – State has stated that the investigation is complete and the chargesheet has also been filed on 10th of May, 2013 and the applicant has the remedy of filing an application for discharge before the appropriate Court. 6. We have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant as well as the learned APP appearing for non-applicant no.1 and have also perused the record. The documents i.e. Assessment List and the Tax Receipt filed on record by the applicant show the name of Ramdas Madhao Lande and Sau.Kalawati Ramdas Lande. It is not the case of the non-applicants that Ramdas Madhao Lande and Sau.Kalawati Ramdas Lande are not the owners of the house. Even there is no complaint of that sort on the record. A vague and general statement is made in paragraph no.2 of the reply filed on behalf of the N.A.No.1 that the non-applicant no.2 – Complainant came to know that the said documents furnished by the applicant are not genuine and were fake and fraudulent. The non-applicants have not been in a position to explain as to on what basis they are stating that the documents are fake and fraudulent. 7. The applicant has further made a submission that the non-applicant no.2 – Complainant has no authority to lodge the complaint in view of the provisions of Section 195 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We need not go into this question. On considering the material on record, we find that the complaint and the First Information Report against the applicant is vague and does not even, prima facie, disclose any offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant. The ingredients of Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 are not made out in the First Information Report. On considering the material on record, we find that the complaint and the First Information Report against the applicant is vague and does not even, prima facie, disclose any offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant. The ingredients of Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 are not made out in the First Information Report. Consequently, chargesheet filed on the basis of the First Information Report is also not sustainable. 8. Therefore, the application is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (1). The chargesheet filed consequent to the First Information Report is quashed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs. Application allowed.