Jitesh Laxman Mahajan And Others vs Sharad Pundlik Rane And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 1632 Bom

                                     (1)                             crwp1431.16

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1431 OF 2016

1.    Jitesh Laxman Mahajan                           ..       Petitioners
      Age. 25 years, Occ. Education,

2.    Laxman Yadav Mahajan
      Age. 55 years, Occ. Nil,

3.    Sow. Hemlata Laxman Mahajan
      Age. 48 years, Occ. Household,

4.    Sow. Harsha Liladhar Rane
      Age. 28 years, Occ. Household,

      All R/o. N-9, K-42/4, Pawannagar,
      CIDCO, Aurangabad,
      Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.

                                    Versus

1.    Sharad Pundlik Rane                             ..       Respondents
      Age. 52 years, Occ. Agri.,
      R/o. Nanded, Tq. Dharangaon,
      Dist. Jalgaon.

2.    The State of Maharashtra


Mr.A.G. Talhar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr.S.M. Ganachari, APP for respondent No.2/State.


                                     CORAM :  T.V. NALAWADE,J.

DATED : 11.04.2017

(2) crwp1431.16

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By

consent heard both the sides for final disposal.

2. In the present matter the order of issue process

made by the learned J.M.F.C. in Criminal Misc.

Application No. 231 of 2015, which was pending in the

Court of J.M.F.C., Dharangaon and the judgment in

Criminal Revision Application No.153 of 2016, which was

pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon are

challenged. The Criminal Misc. Application was filed for

order under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. by respondent -

Sharad Rane. The learned J.M.F.C. did not make order

under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. but instead directed

to record verification statement of the complainant and

witness. Accordingly statement of verification of

complainant and his witness-Kailas came to be recorded.

The learned J.M.F.C., then made order to make

investigation under section 202 of the Cr.P.C. The police

filed report on 26.05.2016 under section 202 of the

(3) crwp1431.16

Cr.P.C. and informed that the incident had not taken

place on 28.06.2015 in Dharangaon. It was reported that

on 28.06.2015 probably meeting was held in Jalgaon itself

in the office of one Arun Barhate and after that both

sides must have filed complaints against each other. The

report indicates that on 28.06.2015 meeting was arranged

in Jalgaon and not at Dharangaon.

3. The order of issue process made by the learned

J.M.F.C.shows that he placed reliance on the verification

statement and issued process. The learned Judge of the

Sessions Court has held that probably after submission of

report under section 202 of the Cr.P.C., one more

statement of Kailas was recorded at Exh.4 and there was

additional material for making order of issue process.

The submissions made and copy of the other verification

produced on record show that verification statement of

Kailas was recorded on 03.12.2015 i.e prior to the date

of submission of report under section 202 of the Cr.P.C.

(4) crwp1431.16

4. It can be said that the learned J.M.F.C. was

satisfied with the material available, before making

order under section 202 of the Cr.P.C. to issue process.

It can be said that the report of police under section

202 of the Cr.P.C. is not in favour of the complainant.

In-spite of these circumstances, the order of the

J.M.F.C. does not show that reasons are given as to why

the Magistrate was thinking proper to issue process. No

material at all is discussed by the learned J.M.F.C.

5. The submissions made show that son of respondent

- Sharad Rane has filed divorce proceedings against

Harsha Rane. Some matrimonial dispute is going on. The

wife had filed report under section 498-A of the I.P.C.

against the husband and relatives. In view of these

circumstances, it is necessary for the learned J.M.F.C.

to consider possibility of false implication and for

that, application of mind is necessary. The learned

Counsel for the original complainant submits that the

complainant may be able to give more material for the

(5) crwp1431.16

satisfaction of the learned Magistrate for making such

order. In view of the submissions made, this Court holds

that the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. cannot

sustain in law.

6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed.

The order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. is hereby set

aside. The Revision filed against the said order is

hereby allowed. However, the matter is remanded back to

the learned J.M.F.C. The learned J.M.F.C. is to give

opportunity to the complainant to give more material and

only after that the order is to be passed by the learned

J.M.F.C. All points are kept open.

7. The Criminal Application is allowed in above

terms. Rule made absolute accordingly.

[T.V. NALAWADE,J.] snk/2017/APR17/crwp1431.16