Bombay High Court
Mandar Madhav Dabholkar vs State Of Mah on 23 June, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
CR.WP/527/2004
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 527 OF 2004
Mandar Madhav Dabholkar,
Age 33 years, Occ. Service
R/o Shahanoormiya Dargah Road,
Aurangabad. ..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Tribhuwan Nitin T.
APP for Respondent : Shri Karlekar S.G.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: June 23, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2003,
delivered by the learned Magistrate, thereby rejecting the application
of the petitioner seeking discharge from the offences punishable under
Sections 342 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is also
aggrieved by the order dated 9.7.2004, by which his revision petition
has been rejected.
2. The petitioner contends that the complaint filed by the
complainant is vague and ambiguous. Specific accusations against the
petitioner have not been mentioned in the complaint. Issue is as
regards the petitioner entering in the premises of the complainant
CR.WP/527/2004
factory to dismantle the machinery.
3. It is further submitted that in fact, the complainant himself had
issued a letter dated 6.7.2002, requesting the petitioner to take out the
machines from his factory or sell them. A letter dated 19.9.2002 was
written by the workers of the complainant factory informing the
petitioner that the Labour Court has granted prohibitory orders on
removing the machine from the factory of the complainant.
4.
It is strenuously submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he,
neither by his own act attempted to remove the machinery, nor was he
aware of the Labour Court's orders. Since he was authorised by the
complainant to remove the machines, he had entered the factory on
20.9.2002 at about 11.00 am. It is further strenuously submitted that
the petitioner neither confined the complainant in his office in between
11.00 am to 6.00 pm nor did he issue threats to the complainant. A
false case has been put forth by the complainant and the petitioner has
been falsely implicated. He submits that no such incident occurred,
much less, at the behest of the petitioner.
5. He further submits that the manner in which the petitioner
allegedly confined the complainant to his office, is also not spelt out.
Specific details as regards to the actual act committed by the petitioner
have not been stated in the complaint. He, therefore, submits that the
CR.WP/527/2004
impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioner to discharge
him and the dismissal of the revision petition are perverse and
erroneous orders and hence they are required to be quashed and aside.
6. The learned APP on behalf of the State submits that if there is
some material at the prima facie stage before the learned Magistrate,
an application for discharge need not be entertained. The complaint
filed by the complainant makes out a case against the petitioner. The
detention of the complainant by the petitioner and the threats issued
by him, have been mentioned in the first information report. The words
used by the petitioner are also mentioned.
7. He further submits that whether there is sufficient material to
convict the petitioner or not, is not to be seen at a stage prior to the
trial. It would be a matter of evidence and the petitioner would get an
adequate opportunity to prove his innocence.
8. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates.
9. The learned Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions
Judge have rejected the request of the petitioner seeking discharge
from the proceeding. The contents of the complaint and the material
available has been considered by the learned Magistrate while rejecting
the application for discharge on 10.11.2003. The statement of the
CR.WP/527/2004
complainant has been considered and the learned Magistrate has arrived
at a prima facie conclusion that there was material on record to
prosecute the accused. I also find from the judgment of the revisional
Court that the said statement has been discussed and both the courts
below are convinced that the application for discharge deserves to be
rejected.
10. I find that the contention of the petitioner that there is no
material at all, so as to initiate prosecution, appears to be fallacious in
view of the material considered and discussed by the Courts below. At
this stage, without drawing any conclusion, even if it is assumed that
the communication dated 16.7.2002 by the complainant permitting the
petitioner to take out the machines or to sell them is true, yet the
order of the Labour Court preventing the removal of the machines from
the factory could not have been bye-passed or disobeyed. In this
backdrop, it appears that the petitioner exerted pressure on the
complainant and illegally confined him to his chamber for a period of
about six and half hours.
11. In the light of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition
and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
12. Rule is discharged.
CR.WP/527/2004
13. It, however, be noted that the observations of this Court are
restricted only to the extent of the application for discharge filed by
the complainant and would not tantamount to any decision on the
merits of the matter. The learned Magistrate is, therefore, at liberty to
decide the said proceedings on their own merits. All contentions of the
litigating sides are kept open.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
ig ...
akl/d
