Manojkumar S/O Ramkrishna Dhande vs Honble Jt. C. J. And J. M. F. C. Civil ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 13540 Bom

                                                  1                     apl1337.19.odt


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

       CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1337 OF 2019

    Manojkumar s/o Ramkrishna Dhande,
    Aged about 39 years, Occ: Advocate,
    R/o Mangalwari Peth, Bhawani Square Umred,
                                               ...APPLICANT
    Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur-441203.

          ---VERSUS---

1. Hon'ble Joint Civil Judge and Judicial
   Magistrate First Class, Civil and Criminal Court
   Building, Umred, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur
2. Pravin Moreshwar Sahare
   Aged about 38 years, Occ: Managing Director,
   Virat Mahila Credit Urban Cooperative Bank
   Ltd.
3. Kavita Pravin Sahare
   Aged about 35 years, Occ: Vice President,
   Virat Mahila Credit Urban Co-operative Bank
   Ltd.
   Sr. nos.2 & 3, R/o In front of Kushnarpanam
   Building, Chandrika Pure Layout, Om Sainagar,
   Godhani, Nagpur, Tah.-Dist. Nagpur 441123. ...NON-APPLICANTS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for applicant.
Shri Amit Chutke, APP for non-applicant no.1.
Ms M.N. Hiwase, Advocate for non-applicant nos.2 and 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 CORAM           : G.A. SANAP, J.

                                 DATE            : DECEMBER 23, 2022.
                                         2                   apl1337.19.odt


ORAL JUDGMENT

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of the advocate appearing for the parties. Perused the

record and proceedings.

1. This application has been filed challenging the order

dated 09.12.2019 passed below Exh.1 in S.C.C. No.686 of 2018 by

the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umred, whereby the

learned Magistrate was pleased to direct the Assistant

Superintendent, who was attached to 2nd Joint Civil Court, Junior

Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Umred to file

complaint against Advocate Mr. M.R. Dhande in the Court of 2 nd

Joint Judicial Magistrate First Class, Umred, for an offence

punishable under Section 466 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The allegation, as can be seen from the order, is that in a

case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881 the applicant-advocate represented the complainant. It is the

allegation of the non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 that initially a copy of

the statutory notice served before filing the complaint was not

signed by the advocate. The advocate appearing for the complainant

in the Court in presence of the advocate representing the accused

made his signature on that copy of the notice. The learned advocate 3 apl1337.19.odt

appearing for the accused filed a pursis to that effect on record

before learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, therefore, took

cognizance and issued the directions as stated above.

3. I have heard Shri A. C. Dharmadhikari, learned advocate

for the applicant, Shri A.R. Chutke, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State and Mrs. M.N. Hiwase, learned advocate for

the non-applicant nos.2 and 3. for the parties. Perused the record

and proceedings.

4. The learned advocate appearing for the accused before the

trial Court is present today. The learned advocate, on instructions,

submits that the dispute on this limited count has been resolved by

the parties. The parties have decided to go on with the main

application on merits. The learned advocate for the accused/non-

applicant nos.2 and 3 submits that the Court may allow this

application with appropriate directions.

5. The learned advocate for the applicant took me through the

record and submitted that the mens rea required to be established

was totally lacking. Learned advocate submitted that the original

notice issued to the accused persons was returned unserved. The

postal packets containing the original notices were not opened. The

packets contain the signed original notices issued to the non-

4 apl1337.19.odt

applicant no.2 and 3/accused. The learned advocate, therefore,

submitted that the this is not a case to forge a document with

intention to create evidence of facts which did not exist.

6. I have gone through the record and proceedings. In my

view, on both the counts the application deserves to be granted. The

applicant is an advocate. The advocate appearing for the non-

applicant nos.2 and 3 and applicant are practicing in one and the

same Court. It appears that they have understood the consequences

of this prosecution. In my view, therefore, the application deserves

to be allowed.

7. Accordingly, the criminal application is allowed. The

impugned order dated 09.12.2019 in S.C.C. No.686/2018 is set

aside. The application stands disposed of.

Rule made absolute in above terms.

JUDGE

Manisha

Signed By:MANISHA ALOK SHEWALE

Signing Date:23.12.2022 17:54