Bombay High Court
Deochand Dagduji Karemore vs Mrs. Jyoti W/O Rameshrao Tannawar on 15 March, 2016
Author: Z.A.Haq
Bench: Z.A.Haq
Judgment 1 revn205.10+1.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 205 OF 2010
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 206 OF 2010
CRI.REVN.APPLN.NO. 205/2010.
Shri Deochand Dagaduji Karemore,
Aged about 50 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o. Bharat Nagar, Nagpur.
.... APPLICANT.
// VERSUS //
1. Mr. Jivrajbhai S/o. Ratansingh Patel,
Occu.: Business, R/o. Maa Umiya Bhavan,
Bharat Nagar, Plot No.373, Kalamna
Road, Nagpur,
2. Smt. Babita Chandrabhan Gaikwad,
Aged about 27 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. Plot No.743, Pawan Nagar,
Pilli Nadi, Kamptee Road, Nagpur.
3. Smt. Tarabai W/o. Pandharinath Takote,
aged about 45 years, Occ.: Service,
R/o. Bharat Nagar, Kalamna Road,
Nagpur.
4. Mrs. Kavita W/o. Sunil Dighe,
aged about 35 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. Housing Board Colony, LIG-B,
Opp. Patil Frame Co., Shanti Nagar,
Nagpur.
5. The State of Maharashtra,
through P.S., Kalamna, Nagpur.
.... NON-APPLICANTS
.
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:05:35 :::
Judgment 2 revn205.10+1.odt
WITH
CRI.REVN.APPLN.NO. 206/2010.
Shri Deochand Dagaduji Karemore,
Aged about 50 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o. Bharat Nagar, Nagpur.
.... APPLICANT.
// VERSUS //
1. Mrs. Jyoti W/o. Rameshrao Tannawar,
Aged about 47 years, R/o. Bharat Nagar,
Plot No.373, Kalamna Road, Nagpur,
2. Smt. Babita Chandrabhan Gaikwad,
Aged about 27 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. Plot No.743, Pawan Nagar,
Pilli Nadi, Kamptee Road, Nagpur.
3. Smt. Tarabai W/o. Pandharinath Takote,
aged about 45 years, Occ.: Service,
R/o. Bharat Nagar, Kalamna Road,
Nagpur.
4. Mrs. Kavita W/o. Sunil Dighe,
aged about 35 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. Housing Board Colony, LIG-B,
Opp. Patil Frame Co., Shanti Nagar,
Nagpur.
5. The State of Maharashtra,
through P.S., Kalamna, Nagpur.
.... NON-APPLICANTS
.
______________________________________________________________
Shri M.N.Upadyay, Advocate for Applicant.
Shri N.D.Khamborkar, Advocate for Non-applicant Nos.1 to 4.
Shri S.S.Doifode, A.P.P. for Non-applicant No.5.
______________________________________________________________
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:05:35 :::
Judgment 3 revn205.10+1.odt
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : MARCH 15, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. These two revision applications are disposed of by common judgment as they arise out of the orders passed by the Sessions Court in revisions which were filed by different accused persons, but challenging the same order by which the learned Magistrate had rejected the applications filed by the different accused under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
3. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
4. The non-applicant Nos.1 to 4 in Criminal Revision No. 206 of 2010 had filed Writ Petition No. 11 of 2002 before this Court against:
i) The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station officer, Kalamna Police Station, Kalamna Market, Nagpur.
ii) The Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
iii) Deochand Dagaduji Karemore (present applicant)
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:05:35 :::
Judgment 4 revn205.10+1.odt
alleging that the present applicant was engaged in various illegal activities and crimes like smuggling of teak wood, extortion of money and property and smuggling of skin of protected and wild animals, that the complaints were made to the Police Authorities, however, action was not taken, that the present applicant had pelted stones at the residence of the non-applicant No.1-Jyoti had abused her and had exposed himself indecently on 24th October, 2000 at about 8.00 p.m. and a complaint about it was made to the Police Authorities on 25th October, 2000 and Crime No. 3102 of 2000 was registered against the present applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506, 509 and 336 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the Police Authorities were not investigating the matter and not taking any further action against the present applicant. It was prayed that the Police Authorities be directed to take cognizance of the complaint and to investigate. This Court issued notice to the respondents in Writ Petition No. 11 of 2002 and after considering the reply filed by the State of Maharashtra disposed the writ petition by the order dated 14th March, 2002 recording that the Police Authorities had acted on the complaint and after completing necessary formalities, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court.::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:05:35 :::
Judgment 5 revn205.10+1.odt
5. The learned Magistrate conducted the trial of Regular Criminal Case No. 367 of 2000 which was registered against the applicant and after completing the trial acquitted the present applicant.
After Regular Criminal Case No. 367 of 2000 was dismissed the applicant filed complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the non-applicant No.2-Babita and the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4-Jyoti, Babita, Tarabai and Kavita alleging that they had filed Writ Petition No. 11 of 2002 on the say of the non-
applicant No.1-Jivrajbhai and had annexed false, forged and fabricated documents to the petition. The applicant alleged that the non-
applicants had filed false, forged and fabricated documents along with the writ petition to falsely implicate the applicant. The applicant prayed that the non-applicants/accused be punished for the offences punishable under Sections 193, 211, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned Magistrate directed the inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after considering the report directed issuance of the process against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 193, 211, 468 of the Indian Penal Code.
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:05:35 :::Judgment 6 revn205.10+1.odt
6. The non-applicant Nos.1, 3 and 4 Jyoti, Babita, Tarabai and Kavita had filed applications under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that they be discharged from the proceedings. The learned Magistrate passed common order on 25th February, 2009 and rejected the applications.
The non-applicant No.1-Jivrajbhai and the non-applicant No.1-Jyoti had filed Criminal Revision No. 458 of 2009 and Criminal Revision No. 586 of 2009 before the Sessions Court which are allowed by the order dated 13th August, 2010. The learned Additional Sessions Judge concluded that the learned Magistrate had not examined that the ingredients of Sections 193, 211 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code were not made out in the complaint filed by the applicant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge discharged the non-applicants/ accused from the offences punishable under Sections 193, 211, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant, being aggrieved in the matter has filed these revision applications.
7. Shri M.N.Upadhyay, learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the non-applicants/ accused had filed false, forged and fabricated documents along with Writ Petition No. 11 of 2002 for seeking Mandamus against the Police Authorities to take action against ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:05:35 ::: Judgment 7 revn205.10+1.odt the applicant. It is submitted that the non-applicants / accused had intentionally used false and fabricated documents to implicate the applicant in criminal proceedings, knowing that there was no just or lawful ground for such proceedings against the applicant. The learned advocate for the applicant has referred to the deposition of the non-
applicant No.1-Jyoti which was recorded in Regular Criminal Case No. 367 of 2000 and has pointed out that the non-applicant No.1-Jyoti admitted in her cross-examination that she had not filed writ petition against the applicant and that Jivraj Patel might have filed writ petition in her name. It is submitted that the non-applicant No.1-Jyoti admitted in her cross-examination that she was not aware whether the writ petition was dismissed. It is further submitted that Jyoti admitted in her cross-examination that she was not knowing the contents of the writ petition which was filed by Jivraj Patel in her name. It is submitted that these facts show that the non-applicant No.1-Jyoti was also involved in implicating the applicant in false prosecution. It is submitted that copy of the alleged representation which was annexed to Writ Petition No. 11 of 2002 shows signatures of dead persons and this fact is sufficient to prosecute the non-applicants / accused for the offences punishable under Sections 193, 211, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned advocate has submitted that the ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:05:35 ::: Judgment 8 revn205.10+1.odt Magistrate directed inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after considering the report submitted under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate found that there is prima-facie case against the accused persons and had rightly directed issuance of process against the accused persons. It is submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error in recording that there is no prima-facie case against the accused for issuance of process. It is submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to consider that the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 29th July, 2005 directing issuance of process was not challenged by the accused. It is submitted that the impugned order suffers from error of jurisdiction and is unsustainable and be set aside.
It is prayed that the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 29th July, 2005 be maintained and the learned Magistrate be directed to proceed with the prosecution against the non-applicants/ accused.
8. Shri N.D.Khamborkar, learned advocate for the non-
applicants has supported the impugned order urging that the learned Magistrate had failed to discharge his statutory obligation of ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:05:35 ::: Judgment 9 revn205.10+1.odt considering as to whether the material placed on record by the complainant is sufficient to prima-facie hold that the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused are existing to prosecute the accused. It is submitted that the complaint is filed by the applicant because of petitioner's rivalry and there is no substance in the complaint. It is prayed that the criminal revisions be dismissed with costs.
9. The facts on record show that Crime No. 3102 of 2000 was registered against the applicant on the complaint of the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4 in Criminal Revision No. 206 of 2010. The charge-sheet was filed before the learned Magistrate against the applicant vide Regular Criminal Case No. 367 of 2000. Writ Petition No. 11 of 2002 came to be filed in January, 2002 i.e. much after the registration of the first information report against the applicant and much after filing of the charge-sheet against the applicant before the learned Magistrate.
The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Writ Petition No. 11 of 2002 recording that the Police Authorities had taken action on the complaint filed by the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4 in Criminal Revision No. 206 of 2010. In these facts, the contention of the applicant that the non-applicants / accused relied on the false, forged and fabricated ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:05:35 ::: Judgment 10 revn205.10+1.odt documents before this Court in Writ Petition No.11 of 2002 to implicate the applicant in a false criminal case, cannot be accepted.
Moreover, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly recorded that the learned Magistrate committed an error in directing issuance of process for the offences punishable under Sections 193, 211, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code without considering that the ingredients necessary to make out the offence are fulfilled.
The findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the charges levelled against the non-applicants / accused are groundless and the material on the record is not sufficient to prosecute them, cannot be faulted with. I do not find any irregularity and illegality in the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
The Criminal Revision Applications are dismissed.
However, under the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE RRaut..
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:05:35 :::