Ashok S/O Babulal Agrawal vs State Of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1797 Bom

                                              40.apl.1339.2019 judge.odt
                                     1



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

     CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1339 OF 2019

1.    Ashok S/o. Babulal Agrawal,
      Aged about 59 Yrs., Occ.: Business,
      R/o. Chikhli, Tq. Chikhli,
      Distt. Buldhana
                                                       .... APPLICANT
                          // V E R S U S //

1.    State of Maharashtra,
      Through Police Station Officer,
      Police Station Buldhana (City),
      Tq. & Dist. Buldhana

2.    Kantilal S/o. Sakharam Parikh,
      Aged 72 Yrs., Occ.: Agriculturist,

3.    Niraj S/o. Kantilal Parikh,
      Aged 40 Yrs., Occ.: Agriculturist,

4.    Rajesh S/o. Kashinath Tayde,
      Aged 36 Yrs., Occ.: Agriculturist,

5.    Kashinath S/o. Haribhau Tayde,
      Aged 70 Yrs., Occ.: Agriculturist,

6.    Syed Javed Syed Rauf
      Aged 35 Yrs., Occ.: Agriculturist,

7.    Ayubshah Haidarshah
      Aged 47 Yrs., Occ.: Agriculturist,

8.    Dattatraya Bansi Telang,
      Aged 35 Yrs., Occ.: Agriculturist,
                                                                40.apl.1339.2019 judge.odt
                                                    2



9.        Parmeshwar S/o. Narayan Waghmare,
          Aged 55 Yrs., Occ.: Agriculturist,

10.       Ravikumar S/o. Parasmal Jain,
          Aged 40 Yrs., Occ.: Agriculturist,

          All R/o. Deulgaon Raja, Tq. Deulgaon
          Raja, Dist. Buldhana.
                                                                 ... NON-APPLICANTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Shri. Akshay Naik, Advocate for the applicant
          Shri H. D. Dubey, APP for non-applicant No.1
          Shri K. P. Sadawarte, Advocate for non-applicant Nos. 2 to 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.

DATE : 22/02/2023

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties.

3. In this application, made under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, challenge is to the order dated

01.10.2019, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,

Buldhana, whereby the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision

40.apl.1339.2019 judge.odt

application filed by the non-applicant Nos. 2 to 10 and set aside the

order dated 05.04.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Buldhana. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Buldhana, vide order dated 05.04.2018, had allowed the application

made by this applicant under Section 156(3) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (For short 'the Cr.P.C.') and directed the police

station Buldhana city to investigate the case in accordance with the

provisions of law.

4. It is to be noted that on going through the order

passed by the learned Magistrate and the record, the learned

Sessions Judge found that the learned Magistrate, while passing an

order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., had not taken into

consideration all the relevant facts including the civil dispute

pending between the parties, which according to the learned

Sessions Judge was germane to the filing of the complaint in

question. The learned Sessions Judge by setting aside the order

dated 05.04.2018, for the reasons recorded in the order, directed

the learned Magistrate to consider the allegations made in the

40.apl.1339.2019 judge.odt

complaint in the light of the civil proceedings mentioned in the

application. In view of this order, it would not be necessary to set

out the facts in detail.

5. In order to satisfy myself about the correctness of the

order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, I have perused the order

passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Learned Sessions Judge apart

from considering the settled legal position observed that the civil

dispute was pending between the parties. The said civil dispute

could be the cause for filing the complaint. The learned Sessions

Judge observed that before passing the order, the learned Magistrate

ought to have taken that fact into consideration. The relevant

observations set out in para Nos. 12 and 13 of the order passed by

the learned Sessions Judge would show that the approach of the

learned Sessions Judge is just, proper and reasonable. It is further

pertinent to note that the rejection of the application, made by the

applicant under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., by the learned

Sessions Judge would have resulted into prejudice to the applicant.

The matter has been remitted back by setting aside the order for

40.apl.1339.2019 judge.odt

proper inquiry in accordance with law. The order passed by the

learned Sessions Judge, in the facts and circumstances, has in all

respect taken care of and safeguarded the interest of the

applicant/complainant. In view of this position, I do not see any

reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the

learned Sessions Judge. The application is accordingly dismissed.

6. The learned Magistrate shall proceed further to

conduct the inquiry and decide the application at the earliest in

terms of the order passed by the learned sessions Judge dated

01.10.2019.

(G. A. SANAP, J.)

Namrata

Signed By:NAMRATA YOGESH DHARKAR P. A.

High Court Nagpur Signing Date:24.02.2023 17:17