Rajendra S/O Ganeshrao Kadu vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps City ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7782 Bom

                                                 -1-                          41.APL.458.2022.odt



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                 CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.458/2022
                            Rajendra s/o. Ganeshrao Kadu
                                          Vs.
 The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, P.S. City Kotwali, Amravati
                                       & Anr.

************************************************************************************************
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,                     Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
************************************************************************************************
                       Mr. P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for the Applicant.
                       Mr. I.J. Damle, APP for Respondent No.1/State.

                                  CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
                                          VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ.

DATED : 10th AUGUST, 2022.

This application was argued for some time.

2. According to Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, the case is covered in favour of the applicant, as per judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahadeorao Uttamrao Rajurkar & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2020 ALL MR (Cri) 4325, followed in judgment and order dated 21.03.2022, passed by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Purushottam Reddy Pattubala Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Criminal Application (APL) No.605/2021) and connected applications.

3. In this connection, attention of this Court is invited to Section 81 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,

-2- 41.APL.458.2022.odt

1960, particularly sub-section 5-B thereof. On the basis of the aforesaid judgments and the said provision of law, it was submitted that an FIR in the facts and circumstances of the present case could have been registered either by the Auditor with written permission of the Registrar or by the Registrar himself or through a person authorized by the Registrar.

4. In this connection, we put queries to the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on the position of law clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the aspect that investigation through registration of an FIR can be triggered at the behest of third person also and whether the peculiar provision referred to hereinabove has the tendency of putting a fetter on the capacity of a third person to cause an FIR be registered in such cases.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor sought short adjournment to place before this Court compilation of judgments relevant to the queries put by this Court, so that the present application would be considered on merits.

6. List for further consideration on 25th August, 2022.

(VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.) (MANISH PITALE J.) Digitally Signed By:VIJAY KUMAR Personal Assistant to Hon'ble JUDGE Signing Date:11.08.2022 11:31 Vijay