Chandrakant S/O Prakashrao ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 8982 Bom

                                              1                                WP 1694-2016


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

           CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1694 OF 2016


1)    Chandrakant Prakashrao Shejul,
      Age 36 years, Occupation Agriculture
      and Business, R/o Abegaon
      Tal. Majalgaon Dist. Beed.

2)    Shahaji Achyutrao Shejul,
      Age 35 years, Occupation Service,
      R/o as above.

3)    Milind Shivaji Magar,
      Age 28 years, Occupation Service,
      R/o as above.

4)    Ashok Vitthal Magar,
      Age 30 years, Occupation Service,
      R/o as above.
                                                                        ...Petitioners

      Versus

1)    The State of Maharashtra.

2)    Rameshwar Sahebrao Khetri,
      Age 45 years, Occupation Driver,
      R/o Mothewadi Tal.Majalgaon
      Dist. Beed.                                                       ...Respondents
                                    ----

Mr. S. J. Salunke, Advocate for petitioners Mr. A. R. Kale, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/ State

----

                                CORAM :          SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI. J.

                                DATE          : 23-11-2017





                                                2                                WP 1694-2016



ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners are original accused No.1 to 4 who have

challenged the order of dismissal of their criminal revision petition by

Additional Sessions Judge, Majlagaon Dist. Beed on 09-12-2016, by

invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of

the Constitution of India.

2. The factual matrix leading to the petition are that, the

present respondent No.2 / original complainant filed Regular

Criminal Case No.286 of 2016 before the Judicial Magistrate F.C.,

Majalgaon against the present petitioners as well as two others

contending that they have committed offence punishable under

Section 395, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

After the verification of the complainant was recorded, the learned

Magistrate has postponed the issuance of process and examined

witnesses on behalf of the petitioner. Taking into consideration the

complaint, verification of the complainant and statement of

witnesses as well as the documents on record, issued process

against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under

Section 384, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The complaint came to be dismissed for the offence punishable

under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

3 WP 1694-2016

3. The accused No.1 to 4 have challenged the said order of

issuance of process against them in Criminal Revision Petition No.36

of 2016 before Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon Dist. Beed.

The said revision has been dismissed, and therefore, the present

writ petition has been filed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. Perused the

documents on record. It has been argued on behalf of the

petitioners that, the complainant and his wife had taken loan from

the bank to which accused No.1 to 4 are the office bearers. The

complainant and his wife were not regular in payment of loan and in

order to avoid the same they have falsely implicated the accused, so

also the complaint is the outcome of the complaint filed by the bank

against the complainant. Per contra, it has been argued by the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor that, there is no illegality or

error committed by both the Courts below.

5. It is to be noted that the complainant had contended

that, he had purchased vehicle namely Tata Magic Iris and he is

giving it on rent/ hire. On 31-07-2016 when he was cleaning his

vehicle at about 5.30 p.m., the accused persons went on that place

and snatched the keys of the vehicle from the complainant, they

assaulted him, the accused persons inspected the documents of the

4 WP 1694-2016

vehicle and snatched away amount of Rs.17,100/- form the pocket

of the pant of the complainant. It is also alleged that, the accused

persons had taken away the vehicle belonging to the complainant

forcibly. On the basis of these allegations, the verification was

recorded. It appears that, the learned Magistrate was not satisfied

with the verification only, and therefore, called upon the complainant

to lead evidence in the enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. In other

words, the learned Magistrate had postponed the issuance of process

and, thereafter, the complainant has examined in all three

witnesses. After considering the verification, contents of the

complaint and statement of the witnesses, a detailed order has been

passed by learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Majalgaon on 15-11-2016

regarding issuance of process. There is absolutely no fault or error

committed in the procedure by the learned Magistrate.

6. As regards the fact that the complainant and his wife had

taken loan from the bank to which the accused No.1 to 4 are the

office bearers is concerned, the bank has remedy open if the

complainant and his wife are not paying loan installments. No

document has been filed by the petitioners showing that the said

vehicle belonging to the complainant was purchased after obtaining

loan from the said bank.

7. Further the case under Section 138 of Negotiable

5 WP 1694-2016

Instruments Act has been filed by the bank on 07-09-2016 and

which in respect of the term loan outstanding. The complaint before

the learned Magistrate is filed on 08-08-2016. Therefore, it cannot

be said that, the complaint against the petitioners is the outcome of

the complaint which is filed against the complainant. All these facts

also been taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge. I

do not find any error or illegality committed by the learned

Magistrate as well as learned Additional Sessions Judge. There is no

merit in the present writ petition, hence the petition is dismissed.

[SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE

gawade/-.