Bombay High Court
Sanjay Nandlal Tibdewal vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. ... on 31 July, 2017
Bench: P.N. Deshmukh
1 wp632.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 632 OF 2016
Sanjay Nandlal Tibdewal, aged
about 52 years, occupation : Trader
and Social Worker, resident of
Shriramnagar, Shegaon, Tahsil :
Shegaon, District Buldhana. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Maharashtra, through Police
Station Officer, Shegaon, Tahsil
Shegaon, District Buldhana. ... Respondent
-----------------
Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. N.P. Mehta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent.
----------------
CORAM : P.N. DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : JULY 31, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of
learned Counsel for the parties.
2) The petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the
impugned order dated 21/7/2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate,
2 wp632.16
First Class, Shegaon below Exh. 26 in Regular Criminal Case
No.532/2010 whereby petitioner's prayer for issuing direction to
prosecution to produce a document on record came to be rejected
pending his application to seek said document under the Right to
Information Act.
3) At the outset, Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel for
petitioner, has submitted that due to passage of time, petitioner has
already received said document, which is resolution passed by General
Body of Municipal Council in a meeting held on 30/6/2010 and as such,
this petition is rendered infructuous as that document can be well
considered and trial may proceed further. However, on the point of
principle, it is submitted that impugned order does not stand for any
reason in view of the fact that learned trial Court except observing that
petitioner has failed to show any connection of said resolution with the
offences alleged against him, has not given any convincing reason while
rejecting the request of the petitioner.
4) According to the facts involved in the case before learned trial
Court, respondent had initiated proceedings for demolition of structure of
petitioner. It appears to be the specific case of petitioner that a resolution
was passed by General Body of Municipal Council, Shegaon before such
act of demolition was taken and for want of production of documents at
3 wp632.16
the time of incident, he asked the Officers of Municipal Council to
produce such documents, due to which he came to be prosecuted for the
offences punishable under Sections 353, 504 and 506(I) of Indian Penal
Code.
5) Section 91(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads thus :
"Whenever any Court or any Officer-in-charge of a Police
Station considers that the production of any document or
other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any
investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this
Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue
a summons, or such Officer a written order, to the person in
whose possession or power such document or thing is believed
to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it,
at the time and place stated in the summons or order."
From the submissions advanced as aforesaid, which are not disputed by
other side, since it is found that document was required by petitioner to
take his defence, it was necessary for learned trial Court to allow the
application. However, without considering that aspect, impugned order
appears to have been passed on other footings, which do not appear to be
relevant for the purpose of present judgment. It also appears that the
resolution, which was prayed to be placed on record, is a public document
and as such, copy of said resolution is already supplied to petitioner under
the Right to Information Act.
4 wp632.16
6) In the result, petition is allowed. The impugned order dated
21/7/2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shegaon is
quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to
costs.
JUDGE
khj
