Hemchandra Doduraj Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6954 Bom

                                1



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

          CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 152/2016


        Hemchandra Doduraj Kamble,
        Age 57 years, Occ. Add Public
        Prosecutor, R/o. 302, Honey Roma Sama
        Compound Mohan Nagar, Nagpur.

                                                 ... APPLICANT

                            VERSUS

   1.   The State of Maharashtra
        through PSO Sitabuldi, Nagpur.

   2.   Ku. Madhuri d/o Hanumantrao
        Waghade, aged about 25 years,
        Occ. Service, Police Station
        Sitabuldi, Nagpur.

   3.   Ku. Tejashwini D/o Santosh
        Kuthe, aged about 20 years, Occ.
        Student, R/o. Nalanda Nagar,
        Kapil Chowk, PS Yashodhara
        Nagar, Nagpur.



                                           ...NON-APPLICANTS
_____________________________________________________________
       Mr. S. G. Malode, Advocate for the applicant.
       Mr. S. M. Ukey, A.P.P. for non-applicant No.1/State.
______________________________________________________________

                CORAM                      : VINAY JOSHI, J.

                DATE OF JUDGMENT           : 20.07.2022.


ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard finally by consent of respective parties.

3. The applicant has impugned herein the order dated

21.11.2015 passed in MCA No. 3894/2015, by which the Magistrate

has rejected the prayer made under Section 156(3) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure ('Code'). The learned counsel appearing for the

applicant would submit that the application moved under Section

156(3) of the Code makes out a case of cognizable nature and thus, the

Magistrate ought to have directed the Police to register an offence. The

State opposed this application by contending that the contents of

applications are even if taken it as a true, it does not make out prima

facie case and it is after thought version.

4. Perusal of the application filed to the Magistrate states story

of road accident dated 30.09.2014. The applicant stated that at around

09.30 pm, there was a dash of his car with two wheeler driven by one

girl. Since the two wheeler mistakenly gave a dash, such entry was

registered at station diary. It is alleged that there after non-applicant

No. 2, Police Officer approached to the applicant on 02.10.2014 and

raised monetary demand for non-registration of crime. He has

submitted that, as the amount was not paid, false charge-sheet was

filed against him for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and

337 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also contended that the

investigation paper contains a false and fabricated documents and

therefore, it needs investigation.

5. Perusal of record indicates that alleged road accident took

place on 30.09.2014. On the very day, a station diary entry was made

at Sitabuldi Police Station noting the incident. It appears that latter on,

the Police carried out preliminary investigation and registered offence

against the applicant 11.10.2014 and was followed by filing of charge-

sheet on 4th May, 2015. Notably, the applicant has approached to the

Magistrate after filing of charge-sheet i.e. on 3 rd October 2015. it

reveals that the principal allegation is that the non-applicant No.2 has

raised a monetary demand for desisting from taking any action. It

requires to be noted that the applicant was working as an Additional

Public Prosecutor at Bhandara and thus, he knows the ways as to what

to do, when a public servant raises a monetary demand for illegal

purpose. Therefore, prima facie, there appears to be no substance in

said allegation to proceed further.

6. Certainly, at the stage of issuing direction under Section

156(3) of the Code, the Magistrate has to apply his mind to the limited

extent as he cannot act as a postman to forward the application to the

Police. It appears that the grievance of applicant is of filing of charge-

sheet. Admittedly, the applicant has not applied for quashing of

charge-sheet, but he faced the trial. It is difficult to hold that false

documents were prepared for filing of the charge-sheet. The applicant

is unable to point out the documents which are allegedly forged. The

impugned order specifies the reasons for rejection which cannot be

faulted with. In view of that, no case of interference is made out.

Hence, application stands rejected and disposed of.

(VINAY JOSHI, J.)

Gohane Digitally signed by JITENDRA JITENDRA BHARAT BHARAT GOHANE GOHANE Date:

2022.07.21 12:30:08 +0530