Gurukrupa Shikshan Sanstha ... vs Pradeep D. Gidhmare And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 12987 Bom

                                        23 cr. wp 683.22.odt..odt
                                                1/5



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

        CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.683 OF 2022

1.        Gurukrupa Shikshan Sanstha
          Ambora, Tahasil-Kuhi,
          District- Nagpur,
          Through its President,
          Bhaskar R. Bhongade
          Aged about 69 yrs.,
          Occ:- Agriculturist.
          R/o- Ambora, Tahasil- Kuhi,
          District - Nagpur                ... PETITIONER


                         // VERSUS //

1.        Pradeep D. Gidhmare,
          Aged about -40 yrs, Occ:- Service,
          (Head Master in Gurukrupa Shikshan
          Sanstha, Ambora)
          R/o- Ambora, Tahasil - Kuhi
          District Nagpur

2.        Ratan P. Shivankar,
          Aged about 40 yrs, Occ:- Service
          (Assistant Teacher in Gurukrupa Shikshan
          Sanstha, Ambora)
          R/o Ambora, Tahsil-Kuhi
          District Nagpur                ... RESPONDENTS


Shri A.K. Neware, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.R. Vyas, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
____________________________________________________
                                              23 cr. wp 683.22.odt..odt
                                                     2/5



CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.

DATE:- 14/12/2022

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner has questioned the correctness of the order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 28.05.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kuhi, dismissing the private complaint filed by the petitioner.

3. The complaint was filed by the complainant stating that he was the committee member of an Education Society, which is running a school at Ambhora. The accused arrayed in the complaint were the Head Master and Assistant Teacher. According to the complainant, they had prepared forged and fabricated proceeding books and brought into existence various resolutions purportedly passed by the committee. The documents were sent to the handwriting expert. The handwriting expert opined that the documents were forged. The complainant approached the concerned Police Station. However, his complaint was not accepted. The complainant therefore, filed the 23 cr. wp 683.22.odt..odt

application/ complaint before the learned Magistrate.

4. Learned Magistrate recorded the verification statement on oath of the complainant. Learned Magistrate on the basis of the material on record found that the documents in question were forged and fabricated, but the complaint lack the necessary material/pleading to prima-facie attribute the alleged acts of forgery and fabrication to the accused persons. Therefore, the complaint came to be dismissed.

5. The revision application filed before the learned Sessions Judge, challenging the said order of dismissal of the complaint was dismissed. The petitioner has therefore, challenged the correctness of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge by filing this writ petition.

6. I have heard Shri A. K. Neware, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Rajnish Vyas, learned Advocate for the respondents. Perused the record and proceedings.

7. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that before dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate was duty bound to record the statement of the complainant on oath. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate was required to record the evidence of the witnesses cited by the complainant. In the submission of learned Advocate, this mandatory requirement was not fulfilled in this case and therefore, the dismissal order was illegal and perverse.

23 cr. wp 683.22.odt..odt

8. Learned Advocate for the respondents submitted that the Courts below have recorded cogent and concrete reasons. It is pointed out that the verification statement of the complainant was recorded on oath and therefore, there was substantial compliance of Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. before passing the order of dismissal. Learned Advocate further submitted that initially the complaint was filed by one Shri Doma Govinda Bangadkar in his capacity as a President of the Society. It is pointed out that this petition has been filed by Gurukrupa Shikshan Sanstha, Ambhora through its President Shri Bhaskar Bhongade. It is submitted that therefore, the reasoned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not require interference.

9. In order to satisfy myself about the correct factual position, I have gone through the record and proceedings. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has pointed out to me the verification statement of the complainant recorded on oath. The said statement is not part of the writ petition. It is therefore, apparent that learned Magistrate, in compliance with the mandate of the law, recorded that verification statement of the complainant on oath. Learned Magistrate, as can be seen from the record, took into consideration the facts stated in the complaint as well as in the verification statement on oath while passing the order. It is to be noted that there is no iota of material to indicate that the accused persons were directly or indirectly involved in the offence of forgery or fabrication. It is to be noted that in the absence of such material to prima-facie attribute these acts of the offences of 23 cr. wp 683.22.odt..odt

forgery and fabrication to the accused, the process could not have been issued against the accused. The learned Sessions Judge has considered all these aspects. I do not see any reason to interfere with this well reasoned order.

10. It is submitted that initially the report was sought to be lodged to the police by the complainant. However, the same was not accepted. It is pertinent to note that a copy of the said report sought to be lodged at the police station has not been placed on record. It is to be noted that the complainant could have taken that issue to the logical conclusion. The complainant could have made an application to the superior officer and brought to his notice this fact and failure of the in-charge of the police station. The record and the complaint is silent about it.

11. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that no interference is warranted in the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The Criminal Writ Petition therefore, stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged.

JUDGE

manisha

Signed By:MANISHA ALOK SHEWALE

Signing Date:16.12.2022 16:43