Bombay High Court
Chitra Wd/O Shriram Ghongade And 3 ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 1 March, 2022
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
(1) 34.cri.wp.110.2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.110 OF 2022
Chitra wd/o Shriram Ghongade and others
Vs.
State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Bhatkuli Dist. Amravati and
others
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 petitioners.
Mr. A. R. Chutke, APP for respondent no.1.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 01/03/2022
Heard Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Chutke, learned APP for respondent
no.1.
2. This petition challenges the issuance of
process by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
who by his order dated 26.09.2019, in a complaint, after
directing investigation and receipt of the report by the
police authorities, has issued process against the
petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections
193, 199, 200, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners claimed to be
joint owners of field Survey No.31 (old Survey No.8)
situated Mouza Alangaon, Tahsil Bhatkuli, District
Amravati. The title of the petitioners has been accepted
by the Civil Court in Regular Civil Suit No.358 of 1977 in
which, the challenge by one Dwarkabai Wamanrao
(2) 34.cri.wp.110.2022
Ghongade and the respondent no.3, to the will dated
15.04.1959 executed by Abhiman Ghongade in favour of
Shriram Ghongade has been rejected by dismissal of the
suit on 31.08.1985. There being no further challenge,
the aforesaid judgment attained finality. The aforesaid
field thereafter, became the subject matter of land
acquisition proceedings in which the Land Acquisition
Officer (LAO) by an award dated 31.05.2018 ruled in
favour of the petitioners. On 23.07.2018, Regular Civil
Suit No.335 of 2018 came to be filed by the respondent
no.3, in respect of the same subject matter as was earlier
raised in Regular Civil Suit No.358 of 1977, and claiming
a partition and right, considering which, the plaint came
to be rejected on 16.02.2019. An appeal, thereafter,
came to be filed on 14.03.2019, in which, the petitioner
no.1 had appeared on 22.04.2019. This appeal was
withdrawn and the claim has been dismissed on
28.08.2021. However, on 30.04.2019, the petitioner nos.
1 and 2 had sworn an affidavit before the LAO (page 88)
claiming that there was no litigation pending in respect
of the property acquired and in case, it is so found, the
entire compensation would be returned back. The
respondent nos. 2 and 3, sensing that this affidavit was
filed during the pendency of the appeal, filed a complaint
with the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class under the
aforesaid provisions, contending that a false affidavit was
sworn by the petitioners and therefore, the aforesaid
offences were committed. The learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class after calling and receiving the
report from the police authorities has issued process. The
(3) 34.cri.wp.110.2022
challenge to the same before the learned Sessions Court
came to rejected by the judgment dated 04.01.2022.
3. Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the
petitioners by inviting my attention to the affidavit
(page 88) submits, that it was in a standard format made
available at the office of the Collector and was required
to be filled in and submitted before the LAO for the
purpose of receiving compensation. He therefore
submits, that the affidavit was not submitted for the
purpose of being received as an evidence before an
authority competent to receive it due to which, the
provisions of Sections 193, 199 and 200 were not
attracted, which was also for the reason, there was no
finding recording by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class that the said declaration was corruptly used as
required by Section 200. He further submits, that
provisions Sections 420, 468 and 471 were clearly not
attracted in the matter, considering that swearing of an
affidavit, in the standard format could not be considered
as a forgery for the purpose of cheating. For the similar
reason, it is contended that Sections 420 and 471 also
did not apply and also for the reason that the rights of
the petitioners in the property in question stood already
crystallized by the judgment of the learned Civil Court
dated 31.08.1985. It is therefore, submitted that the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as the
learned Sessions Court has committed an error, in issuing
process and dismissing the revision against the same.
(4) 34.cri.wp.110.2022
4. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable
on 14.03.2022.
5. Mr. A. R. Chutke, learned APP waives notice
for respondent no.1.
6. Considering the nature of the allegations,
there shall be a stay in terms of prayer clause (ii), till the
returnable date.
JUDGE
Sarkate
Digitally signed byANANT R
SARKATE
Signing Date:01.03.2022
21:20
