Bombay High Court
Sau. Archana Pradip Ghevande vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 12 January, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 revn74.18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.74/2018
Sau. Archana Pradip Ghevande,
Aged about 44 years, Occ. Advocate,
r/o Adarsha Colony, Deulgaon Raja,
Tq. Deulgaon Raja, Dist. Buldhana. .....APPLICANT
...V E R S U S...
1. The State of Maharashtra through
Police Station Officer, P.S. Deulgaon
Dist. Buldana.
2. Varsha Govind Kankal,
aged 39 years, Occ. Advocate,
r/o Fukatpura, Sindkhed Raja,
Tq. Sindkhed Raja, Dist. Buldhana. ...NON APPLICANTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for applicant.
Mrs. M. A. Barabdhe, A.P.P. for non applicant no.1.
Ms S. Khobragade, Advocate for non applicant no.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE :- 12.01.2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. Heard Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for applicant,
Mrs. Barabdhe, learned A.P.P. for non applicant no.1-State and Ms
Khobragade, learned counsel for non applicant no.2.
2 revn74.18.odt
3. By filing this application, applicant is challenging
judgment and order passed in Criminal Revision No.82/2017
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana on
20.02.2018 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge quashed
and set aside the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Deulgaon Raja in Misc. Criminal Application No.98/2017
and remanded the matter back to the trial Court for deciding the
point of issuance of process, afresh.
Learned counsel for applicant heavily relied on decision
of Hon'ble Apex Court in Assistant Collector of Customers and
anr. Vs. U.L.R. Malwani and anr. reported in AIR 1970 SC 962,
particularly paragraph 9 of the said judgment.
4. The applicant herein filed private complaint against
non applicant no.2 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Deulgaon Raja. After recording verification and also
recording evidence of two witnesses, learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Deulgaon Raja, on 09.10.2017 issued process against
non applicant no.2 for an offence punishable under Sections 294,
323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
3 revn74.18.odt
5. Non applicant no.2, being aggrieved by the said,
approached to the revisional Court by filing Criminal Revision No.
82/2017. The learned revisional Court partly allowed the revision
inasmuch as order of process was quashed and learned revisional
Court directed learned Magistrate to hear the original complainant
on the point of delay after quashing the process issued against non
applicant no.2.
6. The incident in question is dated 05.10.2016. It is
pertinent to note that complainant as well as accused both are
advocates and practice at Deulgaon Raja. The complaint case is in
respect of the incident dated 05.10.2016 and complaint was filed
by the complainant on 27.06.2017. Thus, there is a delay of 8
months. It is a cardinal principle of law that delay cannot be fatal.
However, it is duty of complainant to explain delay satisfactorily.
7. Since it is a private complaint, at the threshold, it was
expected on the part of the complainant to explain the delay and
the learned Judge of the trial Court before issuance of the process
was expected to deal with the said aspect. Perusal of the order
passed by learned Magistrate issuing process clearly shows that
4 revn74.18.odt
the learned Magistrate has not touched and/or considered the
issue in respect of filing of the complaint belatedly.
8. Learned revisional Court, in my view, has not
committed any error in remanding matter in the Court of learned
Magistrate in order to give an opportunity to the complainant to
explain the delay. It shall be open for learned Magistrate either to
accept or reject the explanation offered by the complainant. While
considering the said aspect, it will be open for the complainant to
adduce the necessary evidence.
9. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the view that no
interference is required in the order passed by the revisional
Court. The revision is, therefore, rejected.
Rule is discharged.
JUDGE
kahale
