Bombay High Court
Charansingh Sphansingh Sandhu vs State Of Maha & Ors on 30 November, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
(1) Cri. W.P. No. 360 of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 360 of 2004
District : Nanded
Charansingh s/o. Sohansingh Sandhu,
Age : 48 years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. Shahidpura Gurudwara,
Nanded. .. Petitioner.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S. Shivajinagar,
Nanded.
2. Jasbirsingh s/o. Kartarsingh
Bhatiya,
Age : 33 years,
Occupation : Agriculture and
Business,
R/o. Vishnupuri,
Taluka & District Nanded. .. Respondents.
............
Mr. Abhay Ostwal, holding for
Mr. S.G. Karlekar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. P.N. Kutti, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for
respondent no.1.
Mr. S.S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate, for respondent
no.2.
............
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 30TH NOVEMBER 2016
(2) Cri. W.P. No. 360 of 2004
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard the learned Advocates for the
respective parties.
02. The order passed by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge allowing the Revision Application
filed by the respondent no.02 under Section 397 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is allowed and
the matter is remitted to the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate for deciding application (Exhibit No.42)
first before proceeding further, is challenged.
03. The respondent no.02 had filed complaint
praying that the present petitioner is liable to be
prosecuted and convicted for the offence punishable
under Sections 392, 420 read with Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code. The learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate dismissed the complaint and acquitted the
accused. The respondent no.02 had filed Revision
Application which is allowed by the impugned
judgment.
04. The submission on behalf of the petitioner
is that the judgment passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate was required to be challenged before this
Court after obtaining leave as per Sub-Section 4 of
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
and the Sessions Court could not have exercised
(3) Cri. W.P. No. 360 of 2004
jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. To substantiate the
argument, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has
relied upon the provisions of Sub-Section 4 of
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
and the judgments given by this Court in the
following cases :-
[1] Dharamaji Gangaram Gholam & others
Vs. Vithoba Soma Khade & another
(1992(1) Mh.L.J. 118).
[2] Gajanan Parshuram Chopade
Vs. Mahatma Jyotirao Phule Gramin
Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha
Maryadit, Barloni
(2009(1) Mh.L.J. 845).
05. The learned Advocate for the respondent
no.02 and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor have
not been able to controvert the submission made by
the learned Advocate for the petitioner.
06. Considering the provisions of Section 401(4)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the
proposition laid down in the above referred
judgments, it has to be held that the Revision
Application filed by the respondent no.02 before
Sessions Court was not maintainable. Consequently,
the impugned judgment is unsustainable.
Hence, the following order :-
(4) Cri. W.P. No. 360 of 2004
(a) The judgment passed by the 2nd Ad hoc Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nanded, in Criminal Revision No.
54/2003 on 24th February, 2004 is set aside, and the
Revision Application is dismissed.
(b) Rule made absolute in the above terms. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
( Z.A. HAQ )
JUDGE
ig ..........
puranik / CRIWP360.04
