Bombay High Court
Rajesh Narayan Jakapure vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 4 January, 2018
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 Cri. Appln. No. 1225/2007.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1225 of 2007
Rajesh S/o Narayan Jakapure,
aged 34 years occupation Councillor
R/o Deoli road, Dharmabad Dist. Nanded. ...APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through: Police Station, Dharmabad Dist. Nanded
2. Sahebrao Sainath Narsimlu Panchal,
age 35 years occupation labour
R/o Devi gully, Dharmabad Dist. Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS
Mr Ajinkya Kale, Adv. h/f. For Mr S,.B. Talekar, Adv. for applicant.
Mr S.W. Munde, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respt./State
Mr R.P. Mandlik, Adv. h/f for Mr Amol Gandhi, Adv. for Respt. No.2
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, AND
SMT. VIBHA V. KANKANWADI, JJ.
DATE : 04th January 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. ):
Applicant is before this Court challenging order passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharmabad, dated 3 rd
February 2007, thereby issuing process against applicant as well as
challenging the first information report in crime No. 7 of 2007
registered at Police Station, Dharmabad.
2. Respondent No.2 approached the learned Magistrate
against applicant submitting that the applicant contested election for
Nagar Parishad. It is submitted that the applicant though was
belonging to " Lingayat Koshti ", submitted a Cast Validity Certificate to
show that he is " Koshti ". Thus, by playing mischief and by fabrication
of the documents, namely, by filing an affidavit, the applicant
approached the Caste Scrutiny Committee for seeking validitation of
his caste claim. Learned Counsel for the petitioner made an attempt
to submit before us that in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra
Act No. XXIII of 2001, and more particularly, Section 11(2) of the Act,
respondent No.2 ought to have challenged the Validity Certificate
granted in favour of the applicant. He then submitted that the criminal
action alleging the false Validity Certificate can be initiated only on
receiving a complaint from the Scrutiny Committee. Learned Counsel
submitted that learned Magistrate ought not to have entertained the
complaint initiated by a private person. Thus, order of issuance of
process is unsustainable as well as the lodgment of the report is
unsustainable.
3. Learned Counsel Mr Mandlik, appearing with Mr Gandhi
for respondent No.2, vehemently opposed the application. Mr Mandlik
submitted that the Caste Validity Certificate granted to the petitioner
was subject matter of Writ Petition No. 367 of 2007. Mr Mandlik then
submitted that the report lodged against the applicant for submission
of a false affidavit. He submitted that the applicant though was a
literate person, only to obtain benefits of Caste Certificate, approached
to the Scrutiny Committee by filing an affidavit submitting that the
applicant is an illiterate person. Thus, the report was for commission
of the offences under section 120-B, 465, 468, 471, 195, 417, 427,
419, 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also for committing breach
of provisions of the Representation of People Act. Learned counsel Mr
Mandlik invited our attention to the copy of the order dated 23rd
September 2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ
Petition No. 367 of 2007. The same is taken on record and marked "X
for identification.
4. Perusal of the order of the Division Bench shows that the
Validity Certificate dated 14th October 2006, which is placed on record
in this application at "Annexure B" itself was a subject matter in Writ
Petition No. 367 of 2007. The Division Bench of this Court for the
reasons in the order dated 23rd September 2008, was pleased to
quash and set aside the Validity Certificate dated 14 th October 2006.
The applicant was permitted to appear before the Caste Scrutiny
Committee and the Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to decide
the caste claim of the applicant afresh, within stipulated period. The
caste claim of the applicant is now pending before the Caste Scrutiny
Committee. The fact remains that the Validity Certificate dated 14 th
October 2006 issued in favour of the applicant itself is now quashed
and set aside.
5. In view of this fact, the challenge raised in the application
clearly fails. The application, thus, is dismissed. Rule stands
discharged.
( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ) ( PRASANNA B. VARALE )
JUDGE. JUDGE.
Madkar
