Bombay High Court
Dnyaneshwar Shantram Rode vs Dilip Namdeo Dherenge And Ors on 13 March, 2023
Bench: Amit Borkar
52-wp-3487-2021.doc
Ghuge
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3487 OF 2021
Dnyaneshwar Shantram Rode ... Petitioner
V/s.
Dilip Namdeo Dherenge and Ors ... Respondents
Mr. Priyal G Sarda for the petitioner.
Mr. Suresh D. Bame for respondent No.1.
Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for the State.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : MARCH 13, 2023
P.C.:
1. The petition is directed against the order dated 17 th February,
2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khed-
Rajgurunagar, Dist-Pune in Criminal Revision Application No.2 of
2020 and confirming the order dated 30 th December, 2019 in
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.639 of 2019 passed by
learned J.M.F.C. Court No.1, Khed-Rajgurunagar.
2. The petition arises out of filing of complaint by the applicant
bearing in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.639 of 2019.
The complaint was filed alleging offence under Sections 405, 420,
467, 468, 471, 473 read with section 120 B of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860. The request for investigation under Section 156(3)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was made. The learned
Magistrate by order dated 30th December, 2019 directed
verification of the complaint by the complainant before the
52-wp-3487-2021.doc
issuance of process. This order was made subject matter of
challenge before the learned Revisional Court.
3. The learned Revisional court by the impugned order
dismissed the revision based on Two grounds.
i) Applicant is one of the trustee and accused is
another trustee in the same trust. The dispute appears to
be in respect of the Trust.
ii) Earlier similar complaint filed by the petitioner
was directed to be verified and was fixed for recording
verification.
4. Based on aforesaid Two grounds learned Additional Sessions
Judge thought it fit to adopt same course of action as directed
while deciding earlier complaint on the same allegations.
5. I, therefore, find no illegality in the exercise of the power by
the courts below.
6. The reliance placed in the judgment of the Single Bench of
this Court in the Case of Baban Bhagaji Makale Vs. The State of
Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition No.301 of 2021 dated 31 st
August, 2021 is of no help to the petitioner as this Court held that
while declining exercise of power under Section 156(3), the
Magistrate is mandated to record brief reasons for his decision. On
perusal of the order of the courts below, it appears that both the
courts have supplied plausible reasons for arriving at the
conclusion of the direction to record the verification.
7. The judgment in the case of Santosh Kumari Vs. State of U.P.
reported in 2007 CriLJ 3869 wherein Allahabad High Court
observed that in the facts of the case the essential ingredients of
52-wp-3487-2021.doc
cognizable offence were made out and therefore the direction was
issued to hold an inquiry under Section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. Ultimately, it depends on the nature of
the allegations made against the accused persons in the facts of the
case for framing the charge the offence is alleged is under Section
393, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the
Arms Act, 1959. In that view of the matter, the judgment is of no
help to the applicant.
8. Considering the reasons given by the courts below there is
neither error of jurisdiction nor miscarriage of justice. The writ
petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
