1 WP 1694-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1694 OF 2016
1) Chandrakant Prakashrao Shejul,
Age 36 years, Occupation Agriculture
and Business, R/o Abegaon
Tal. Majalgaon Dist. Beed.
2) Shahaji Achyutrao Shejul,
Age 35 years, Occupation Service,
R/o as above.
3) Milind Shivaji Magar,
Age 28 years, Occupation Service,
R/o as above.
4) Ashok Vitthal Magar,
Age 30 years, Occupation Service,
R/o as above.
...Petitioners
Versus
1) The State of Maharashtra.
2) Rameshwar Sahebrao Khetri,
Age 45 years, Occupation Driver,
R/o Mothewadi Tal.Majalgaon
Dist. Beed. ...Respondents
----
Mr. S. J. Salunke, Advocate for petitioners Mr. A. R. Kale, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/ State
----
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI. J.
DATE : 23-11-2017
::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:11:59 :::
2 WP 1694-2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioners are original accused No.1 to 4 who have challenged the order of dismissal of their criminal revision petition by Additional Sessions Judge, Majlagaon Dist. Beed on 09-12-2016, by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. The factual matrix leading to the petition are that, the present respondent No.2 / original complainant filed Regular Criminal Case No.286 of 2016 before the Judicial Magistrate F.C., Majalgaon against the present petitioners as well as two others contending that they have committed offence punishable under Section 395, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After the verification of the complainant was recorded, the learned Magistrate has postponed the issuance of process and examined witnesses on behalf of the petitioner. Taking into consideration the complaint, verification of the complainant and statement of witnesses as well as the documents on record, issued process against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 384, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint came to be dismissed for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.
::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:11:59 :::
3 WP 1694-2016
3. The accused No.1 to 4 have challenged the said order of issuance of process against them in Criminal Revision Petition No.36 of 2016 before Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon Dist. Beed. The said revision has been dismissed, and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. Perused the documents on record. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that, the complainant and his wife had taken loan from the bank to which accused No.1 to 4 are the office bearers. The complainant and his wife were not regular in payment of loan and in order to avoid the same they have falsely implicated the accused, so also the complaint is the outcome of the complaint filed by the bank against the complainant. Per contra, it has been argued by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that, there is no illegality or error committed by both the Courts below.
5. It is to be noted that the complainant had contended that, he had purchased vehicle namely Tata Magic Iris and he is giving it on rent/ hire. On 31-07-2016 when he was cleaning his vehicle at about 5.30 p.m., the accused persons went on that place and snatched the keys of the vehicle from the complainant, they assaulted him, the accused persons inspected the documents of the ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:11:59 ::: 4 WP 1694-2016 vehicle and snatched away amount of Rs.17,100/- form the pocket of the pant of the complainant. It is also alleged that, the accused persons had taken away the vehicle belonging to the complainant forcibly. On the basis of these allegations, the verification was recorded. It appears that, the learned Magistrate was not satisfied with the verification only, and therefore, called upon the complainant to lead evidence in the enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. In other words, the learned Magistrate had postponed the issuance of process and, thereafter, the complainant has examined in all three witnesses. After considering the verification, contents of the complaint and statement of the witnesses, a detailed order has been passed by learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Majalgaon on 15-11-2016 regarding issuance of process. There is absolutely no fault or error committed in the procedure by the learned Magistrate.
6. As regards the fact that the complainant and his wife had taken loan from the bank to which the accused No.1 to 4 are the office bearers is concerned, the bank has remedy open if the complainant and his wife are not paying loan installments. No document has been filed by the petitioners showing that the said vehicle belonging to the complainant was purchased after obtaining loan from the said bank.
7. Further the case under Section 138 of Negotiable ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:12:00 ::: 5 WP 1694-2016 Instruments Act has been filed by the bank on 07-09-2016 and which in respect of the term loan outstanding. The complaint before the learned Magistrate is filed on 08-08-2016. Therefore, it cannot be said that, the complaint against the petitioners is the outcome of the complaint which is filed against the complainant. All these facts also been taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge. I do not find any error or illegality committed by the learned Magistrate as well as learned Additional Sessions Judge. There is no merit in the present writ petition, hence the petition is dismissed.
[SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE gawade/-.
::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:12:00 :::