Bombay High Court
Prakash Vijay Tandulkar vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 28 March, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 apl565.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.565/2015
Prakash Vijay Tandulkar,
aged about 29 Yrs., Occu. Advocate,
R/o Nath Plot, Khamgaon,
Tq. Khamgaon, Distt. Buldana. ..Applicant.
..Versus..
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through P.S.O., P.S. Tamgaon,
Tq. Sangrampur, Distt. Buldana.
2. Ashok Maroti Thotange,
aged adult, Occu. Service.
3. Dinesh Ramdas Wankhade,
age adult, Occu. Service.
4. Sudhir Reghunath Mankar,
age adult, Occu. Service.
5. Vijay Shriram Rajankar,
age adult, Occu. Service.
6. Laxman N. Lomte,
age adult, Occu. Service.
7. Eknath H. Pachmase,
age adult, Occu. Service.
8. Pralhad P Hage,
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:47:20 :::
2 apl565.15
age adult, Occu. Service.
9. Sandeep Ramdas Raut,
age adult, Occu. Service.
10. Gopal Pundlik Rahate,
age adult, Occu. Service.
11. Shantsheel T. Damodar,
age adult, Occu. Service.
12. G.S. Ingle,
age adult, Occu. Service.
13. Vijay Bharatrao Khupse,
age adult, Occu. Service.
14. Deepak Pundlik Mohod,
age adult, Occu. Service.
15. Kailas Atmaram Badhe,
age adult, Occu. Service.
All R/o Sant Gulab Baba Vidyalaya
Lower (Art) Mahavidyalaya,
Sangrampur, Tq. Sangrampur,
Distt. Buldana. ..
Non-applicants
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------
Shri A.M. Tirukh, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri S.S. Doifode, A.P.P. for non-applicant no.1.
Shri H.M. Mohta, Advocate for non-applicant nos.2 to 15.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 28.3.2016
3 apl565.15
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri A.M. Tirukh, advocate for the applicant, Shri S.S. Doifode, A.P.P.
for the non-applicant no.1 and Shri H.M. Mohta, advocate for the non-applicant nos.2
to 15.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The applicant - complainant has challenged the order passed by the learned
Magistrate rejecting the complaint of the applicant against the non-applicants 3 to
15 and restricting the order of issuance of process against the non-applicant no.2 for
offence punishable under Section 501 of the Indian Penal Code only and not issuing
process against him for offence punishable under Section 120-B, 177, 182 and 500
of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant has also challenged the order passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissing the revision filed by the applicant
and maintaining the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
4. The applicant filed complaint against the non-applicant no.2 - Maroti
4 apl565.15
Thotange and non-applicants 3 to 15 under Section 120-B, 177, 182, 500, 501 and
34 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the non-applicants 2 to 15 had filed false
complaint against the applicant and his father with police station Tamgaon on the
false accusation that the applicant and his father had demanded Rs.20,000/- and
threatened that if the amount is not given then the non-applicants 2 to 15 will be
harassed by seeking information under the Right to Information Act. In the
complaint, it is alleged that the copies of the report lodged by the non-applicants 2
to 15 with police station were circulated to the publishers of newspapers for
publication because of which defamatory news item was published in the
newspapers and, therefore, the applicant and his father apprehended adverse action
against them and sought anticipatory bail. It is alleged in the complaint that
subsequently the complaint lodged by the non-applicants 2 to 15 was withdrawn.
On these allegations, the applicant prayed that the non-applicants 2 to 15 be
prosecuted and punished for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 177, 182,
500, 501 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
After recording the statements and considering the material placed by the
applicant on the record, the learned Magistrate by the order dated 16 th September,
2013 directed the police Authorities to conduct investigation under Section 202 of the
5 apl565.15
Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer conducted the
investigation and submitted the report to the Court. The learned Magistrate, after
considering the report submitted by the police Authorities and after considering the
material on the record, passed order dated 14th February, 2014 concluding that the
material on record was not sufficient to prosecute the non-applicants 3 to 15. The
learned Magistrate directed issuance of process against the non-applicant no.2 for
offence punishable under Section 501 of the Indian Penal Code.
The applicant being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate
concluding that the non-applicants 3 to 15 are not liable to be prosecuted and not
issuing process against the non-applicant no.2 for the offence punishable under
Sections 120-B, 177, 182, 500 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, filed revision before
the Sessions Court which is dismissed by the order dated 16th June, 2015.
The applicant being aggrieved in the matter, has filed this application under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. Shri Tirukh, learned advocate for the applicant has referred to the report
which was lodged by the non-applicants 2 to 15 and has pointed out that admittedly
it was signed by the non-applicants 2 to 15. Relying on the statements of the
6 apl565.15
non-applicants it is submitted that the non-applicants have admitted that the report
was lodged by all of them. The learned advocate has pointed out the copy of pursis
dated 15th January, 2013 which according to the applicant was filed by him in
Summary Criminal Case No.227/2012, in which the applicant represented the
accused as an advocate and which was pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate
First Class Court No.1 Khamgaon which is at a distance of about 50 kilometers from
Tamgaon and it is argued that this documentary evidence falsifies the claim of the
non-applicants 2 to 15 that the applicant had gone to the school on 15 th January,
2013 and had given threats to them. It is submitted that there is sufficient material
on the record on the basis of which the non-applicants 2 to 15 are liable to be
prosecuted for the offence as stated in the application. It is argued that the learned
Magistrate has committed an error in not issuing process to the non-applicants 3 to
15 and consequently, rejecting the complaint against them. It is further argued that
the learned Magistrate ought to have issued process to the non-applicant 2 for the
offence punishable under Section 120-B, 177, 182, 500 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code also and an error is committed by the learned Magistrate in restricting the
issuance of process to the non-applicant no.2 for the offence punishable under
Section 501 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the failure on the part of
7 apl565.15
the learned Additional Sessions Judge to consider all these aspects, vitiates the
order passed by him. It is prayed that the order passed by the Sessions Court be
set aside and the order passed by the learned Magistrate be modified and directions
be issued for issuance of process against the non-applicant no.2 for the offence
punishable under Section 120-B, 177, 182, 500 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
for issuance of process against the non-applicants 3 to 15 for the offence punishable
under Section 120-B, 177, 182, 500, 501 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Shri Mohta, learned advocate for the non-applicants 2 to 15 and Shri
Doifode, learned A.P.P. for non-applicant no.1 have supported the orders passed by
the subordinate Courts.
7. With the assistance of the learned advocates for the respective parties, I
have examined the copies of the documents placed on the record of the application.
The submission made by the learned advocate for the applicant that the report
lodged with the police Authorities on 30th January, 2013 was given by all the non-
applicants 2 to 15 cannot be accepted. The report refers Ashok Maroti Thotange
(non-applicant no.2) as the complainant. Further there is nothing to show that the
8 apl565.15
non-applicants 3 to 15 have been instrumental in supplying the copy of the report to
the publishers of newspapers.
I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate
rejecting the complaint filed against the non-applicants 3 to 15 and restricting the
issuance of process to the non-applicant no.2 for the offence punishable under
Section 501 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate and the learned
Additional Sessions Judge have properly dealt with the relevant aspects. I do not
see any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the subordinate Courts.
The application is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their
own costs.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
