Bombay High Court
Deochand Dagduji Karemore vs Mrs. Jyoti W/O Rameshrao Tannawar on 15 March, 2016
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)
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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..
