Bombay High Court
Prasanna S/O Madhukarrao Dhok vs State Of Mah., Thr. Its Secretary ... on 12 January, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
(1) 909,cri.wp.986.2019.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.986/2019
Prasanna s/o Madhukarrao Dhok
Aged about 51 years,
Occ. Business, R/o Plot No.1.,
Ramdeo Colony, Ambatoli,
Fulchur, Gondia, Tah. and
District - Gondia. ..... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra through
its Secretary, Department of
Home, Mantralaya Mumbai-32.
2. Deputy Inspector General of Police,
(Gadchiroli Range), Nagpur Division,
Nagpur.
3. Superintendent of Police,
Gondia, Tah. and District Gondia.
4. Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Gondia City,
Tah. and District Gondia.
5. Shri Manohar Dabhade,
Age Major, Occ. Service
(Police Inspector), City Police
Station, Gondia, Tah. and
District Gondia.
6. Narendra @ Nanu s/o Natraj
Mudilyar, aged about 55 years,
Occ. Business.
7. Priyesh s/o Narendra Mudilyar,
Aged about 32 years,
Occ. Business,
Both 5 and 6 are
::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 12:52:34 :::
(2) 909,cri.wp.986.2019.docx
R/o Vivekanand Colony,
Mama Chowk, Gondia,
Tah. and District Gondia. .... RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Deepa I. Charlewar, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri S. M. Ghodeswar, APP for the respondents.
Shri V. S. Mishra, Advocate for respondent nos.6 and 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATED : 12/01/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
1] Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2] Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for
the parties.
3] By this petition, the petitioner who claims to be physically
disabled up to 90 %, has sought direction of this Court to register
offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 468 and 469 of the Indian
Penal Code against the accused persons named in his complaint dated
10.04.2019. These accused persons are respondent nos. 6 and 7 in this
petition.
4] According to learned counsel for the petitioner, all the
offences which are punishable under Sections 420, 406, 468 and 469 of
the Indian Penal Code are prima facie made out and therefore,
respondent no.4 ought to have registered these offences and made
(3) 909,cri.wp.986.2019.docx
investigation into them. Learned APP for the State submits that
appropriate order be passed in the matter. Learned counsel for the
respondent nos.6 and 7 submits that even accepting the allegations made
in the FIR, no offences are seen to be prima facie committed by anybody
and therefore there is no substance in the petition.
5] Upon consideration of the complaint dated 10.04.2019 in a
careful manner, we are inclined to accept the argument of learned
counsel for respondent nos. 6 and 7 and we do not find ourselves in
agreement with the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner.
6] In the complaint dated 10.04.2019, there is only one
paragraph in which some allegations have been made against respondent
nos. 6 and 7. These allegations are in the nature that on 30 th March
2019, respondent no.7 had taken away from the shop of the petitioner
cash of Rs.2,29,728/- and that he had also taken such cash in different
sums on different dates from the shop of the petitioner. The details of
such taking away of cash, as alleged, are given in this paragraph and they
are as follows:
Date Cash taken away
01.04.2019 Rs.1,83,558/-
02.04.2019 Rs.3,15,284/-
03.04.2019 Rs.2,45,928/-
(4) 909,cri.wp.986.2019.docx
04.04.2019 Rs.3,04.900/-
05.04.2019 Rs.41,000/-
06.04.2019 Rs.15,000/-
7] Thus, in all according to the petitioner, cash amount of Rs. 15
Lakh has been taken away by respondent no.6. The petitioner has also
alleged that when he made enquiry with the respondent no.6 as to why
this cash amount was not deposited by him in his account, respondent
no.7 gave evasive answers and that he only promised that he would
deposit the entire cash amount in the bank account tomorrow or any
other day shortly but, he did not keep his promise.
8] These are the allegations which would require their
verification and being substantiated by some documentary evidence.
The reason being that these allegations by themselves and taken at their
face value, are not sufficient to prima facie disclose commission of
cognizable offence much less any offence punishable under Sections 420,
406, 468 and 469 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, some more
evidence or material would be necessary. In fact, these allegations do not
even remotely hint at the commission of any offence of forgery. So far as
the offences relating to cheating and misappropriation are concerned, as
stated by us just now, some evidence to substantiate the same would be
required. It would be necessary for the petitioner to give the details of
(5) 909,cri.wp.986.2019.docx
daily turnover of his shop and also the tax returns filed by him. Nothing
of this sort has been done by the petitioner and therefore, no direction as
sought by the petitioner can be issued to the Investigating Officer. The
pre-requisite for issuance of such a direction is of a disclosure of
commission of a cognizable offence, which is lacking in the present case.
9] In the circumstances, we find this petition to be devoid of
merits. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. Liberty to the petitioner to
resort to any other appropriate remedy as may be available at law,
keeping all contentions open.
Rule is discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
Sarkate.
