Nitin Madanlal Partani And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra
2023 Latest Caselaw 8908 Bom

   Gokhale                              1 of 5                             4-apl-1029-23


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1029 OF 2023

 Nitin Madanlal Partani & Ors.                                    ..Applicants
       Versus
 The State of Maharashtra                                         ..Respondent

                             __________
 Mr. Satyavrat Joshi i/b. Samay S. Pawar for Applicants.
 Mr. S.H.Yadav, APP for State/Respondent.
                             __________

                               CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
                               DATE : 30 AUGUST 2023
 PC :

 1.            The Applicants have challenged the order dated

 27.07.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, F. C. (Court No.1),

 Pune, in R.C.C.No.5282 of 2008. The Applicants are the original

 accused before the said Court in that proceeding. Vide impugned

 order, the learned Magistrate directed the Police Station Officer of

 Samarth police station, Pune to register separate F.I.Rs. for the

 victims other than the first informant and further directed that the

 investigation shall be assigned to the Police Officer not below the

 rank of Police Sub Inspector. He further directed that the

 proceedings before him would proceed only in respect of the




::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2023                     ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2023 22:40:00 :::
                                      2 of 5                             4-apl-1029-23


 victim Chandrakant Maruti Kharje. He further directed the

 Commissioner of Police to look into the matter. He further

 observed that the Court would monitor the process of compliance

 of his order.


 2.            The allegations against the applicants are that the

 applicants are in different businesses viz. sale and purchase of

 rickshaws, private money lending business and one of them is

 connected with Gangadhar Nagari Patsanstha. It is described in the

 story of the charge-sheet. The allegations are that, they in

 conspiracy with each other and by aiding and abetting each other

 forged certain documents and on the pretext of giving loan on

 behalf of the credit society gave loan on their own behalf and used

 those documents to cause monetary loss to the victims. Thereby, all

 of them committed the offences punishable under sections 406,

 420, 467, 468 and 471 r/w. 34 of the I.P.C. There were allegations

 of commission of offence punishable U/s.25 of the Maharashtra

 Money Lending (Regulation) Act. Some documents were used in

 the purchase transaction of rickshaw, as well.




::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2023                  ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2023 22:40:00 :::
                                       3 of 5                             4-apl-1029-23


 3.            The Charge was framed on 12.07.2013 and the case is

 pending since then. The learned Magistrate observed that the

 prosecution chose to examine the investigating officer as PW-2.

 Learned Magistrate found this course of trial strange. He observed

 that the Investigating officer had illegally clubbed all these

 transactions together and according to the learned Magistrate only

 three separate transactions can be tried together. There were other

 victims as mentioned in the charge. Apart from the first informant,

 there were five more victims and, therefore, according to the

 learned Magistrate separate F.I.Rs. should have been lodged in

 respect of their transactions.


 4.            Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the

 learned Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction in passing directions

 in the impugned order. He submitted that, even as per the charge

 all these transactions formed a series of the same transactions and,

 therefore, as per Section 220 of the Cr.p.c. this investigation and

 trial was permissible. He further relied on the observations of the

 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya




::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2023                   ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2023 22:40:00 :::
                                         4 of 5                             4-apl-1029-23


 and another Versus State of Gujarat and another 1. The Hon'ble

 Supreme Court has observed in that Judgment that the power to

 make order U/s.156(3) of the Cr.p.c. is available to a Magistrate

 even at post-cognizance stage until trial commences i.e. till charges

 are framed.


 5.             According to Shri. Joshi, once the charges are framed,

 the learned Magistrate did not have power to issue directions for

 registering separate F.I.Rs. The said directions would be related to

 the powers U/s.156(3) of the Cr.p.c. As per the Hon'ble Supreme

 Court's Judgment, after framing of the charge, the learned

 Magistrate could not have passed the impugned order.


 6.             Considering these submissions, it is necessary to seek

 response from the prosecution side. The prosecution will also have

 to explain as to why the Investigating Officer was sought to be

 examined as PW-2 immediately. All these issues are important.

 Therefore, till the learned APP is heard on this issue, it is necessary

 to stay the impugned order.


 7.             Hence, the following order:
 1    (2019) 17 Supreme Court Cases 1




::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2023                     ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2023 22:40:00 :::
                                             5 of 5                              4-apl-1029-23


                                                ORDER

i) Issue Notice to the Respondent/State of Maharashtra, returnable on 19.10.2023.

ii) Stand over to 19.10.2023.

iii) Till then, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) and (c).

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)