Bombay High Court
Rajiv S/O. Vishnupant Saraf vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso ... on 6 August, 2021
Bench: Manish Pitale
8--apl553.21.odt
1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRI. APPLN. (APL) NO. 553 OF 2021
Mr. Rajiv s/o Vishnupant Saraf
-Vs.-
State of Maha, thr. PSO, PS Samudrapur and another
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.R.Vyas, counsel for the applicant.
Ms Shamsi Haider, APP for respondent No.1.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : 06.08.2021
The applicant (original accused) has approached
this Court by way of the present application, aggrieved
by concurrent orders passed by the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Samudrapur, District Wardha
(Magistrate) and the Court of Additional Sessions
Judge, Hinganghat, District Wardha, whereby
application for discharge filed by the applicant stood
rejected.
2. In the present case, notice was issued, wherein
the learned APP has appeared on behalf of respondent
No.1, while the office note shows that respondent No.2
(original informant) is dead.
3. Perusal of the record shows that an F.I.R. dated
03/04/2011, stood registered against the applicant
under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sections
32 and 33 of the Maharashtra Money Lenders Act. The
allegation against the applicant was that he had duped
KHUNTE
8--apl553.21.odt
the original informant by getting certain documents
signed after giving an impression that the documents
pertained to a loan transaction, while the signatures
were obtained on a registered sale deed, whereby land
belonging to the original informant was shown to have
been sold to the applicant. It was claimed that the
original informant was in need of loan of Rs.50,000/-
and that it is in such facts that the original informant
stood duped by the applicant. Upon completion of
investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the applicant
moved an application for discharge before the Court of
Magistrate. It was contended that the material that had
come on record during the course of investigation itself
was sufficient to indicate that the applicant could not be
sent for trial. The applicant relied upon statements of
the witnesses to the registered sale deed, as also the
Sub-Registrar in whose office the document was
registered.
4. The Court of Magistrate did record at one place
in the order dated 30/01/2018 that if the statements of
the witnesses and the Sub-Registrar were perused, it
did appear prima facie that no offence was made out
against the applicant. Yet, the said Court relied upon
the statements made in the F.I.R. by the informant and
the statements made by his son and daughter-in-law
supporting the grievance raised on behalf of the
informant. On this basis, the application was rejected.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed a
revision application before the Sessions Court. By the
KHUNTE
8--apl553.21.odt
impugned judgment and order dated 22/03/2021, the
revision application was rejected, inter alia, observed
that since the informant has alleged that he was
cheated, it was sufficient for the matter to proceed
against the applicant to ascertain the truth of the
allegation.
6. Mr. Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant
invited attention of this Court to the statements of the
witnesses on record and submitted that considering the
contents thereof, allowing the matter to go trial would
be an empty formality. It was submitted that such
material did not raise any grave suspicion against the
applicant and that therefore, the application for
discharge ought to have been allowed.
7. Ms Haider, learned APP appearing on behalf of
respondent No.1 opposed the contentions raised on
behalf of the applicant. It was submitted that the
applicant was an old and allegedly uneducated person,
who claimed that he had been cheated by the applicant
in the aforesaid manner. Considering the plight of the
original informant and his family members, the matter
deserved to go to trial.
8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the
rival parties and perused the material on record,
particularly, the statements of the two witnesses to the
registered sale deed as well as the Sub-Registrar. The
statements of the two witnesses, who had signed on the
registered sale deed as witnesses have both consistently
stated in their statements that the original informant
KHUNTE
8--apl553.21.odt
had received an amount of Rs.4,95,000/- for execution
of the said sale deed. The Sub-Registrar in his statement
has described the manner in which the proceedings are
conducted while registering sale deeds. Thereafter, it is
stated that in the specific case of the transaction
concerning the applicant and the original informant, all
queries as per Rules were put to the parties and after
being satisfied with the response thereto, the document
was registered.
9. Perusal of the aforesaid statements clearly show
that the witnesses have specifically stated about
payment of amount to the original informant at the time
of registration of the sale deed. Therefore, even if this
matter is sent to trial, it is difficult to understand as to
how the allegation levelled by the original informant
could culminate into a finding of guilt against the
applicant. In fact, such material does not even raise a
grave suspicion against the applicant in the present
case.
10. Merely because the original informant in his
report to the Police leading to registration of the FIR
had raised a grievance about being duped by the
applicant and then his son and daughter-in-law
supported his case, would not be enough to raise grave
suspicion against the applicant, particularly in the face
of the aforesaid statements of the two witnesses to the
registered sale deed as well as the Sub-Registrar. Apart
from this, the document of registered sale deed is very
much on record.
KHUNTE
8--apl553.21.odt
11. The Courts below erred in holding against the
applicant in the backdrop of the aforesaid circumstances
and the material on record. Therefore, this Court is of
the opinion that the present application deserves to be
allowed. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The
impugned orders passed by the Magistrate and the
Sessions Court are quashed and set aside. The
application for discharge at Exhibit-40 filed on behalf of
the applicant is allowed and the applicant stands
discharged in the present case.
12. The application is disposed of accordingly.
13. In view of disposal of main application, the
pending application(s) is(are) disposed of.
JUDGE
KHUNTE
