Bombay High Court
Satish Gayacharan Trivedi vs State Of Maha. Thr. Station House ... on 2 April, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:3940-DB
1 APL1095.24 (J).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO. 1095 OF 2024
APPLICANT : Satish @ Munna S/o Gayacharan Trivedi,
Aged 63 years, Occupation : Business,
R/o Jatpura Ward No.2, Near Durga Mata
Mandir, Chandrapur.
VERSUS
NON-APPLICANTS : 1] The State of Maharashtra,
through its Station House Officer,
Police Station, Chandrapur City,
Tah. and Dist. Chandrapur, Maharashtra.
2] Abdul Wahab S/o Abdul Kadar,
Aged about 79 years, Occu. Retired,
R/o Arvind Nagar, Chandrapur,
through its Power of Attorney Holder,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Tejas Patil, Advocate h/f Mr. S.S. Ansari, Advocate for the
applicant.
Mr. M. J. Khan, A. P. P. for non-applicant no.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M. W. CHANDWANI, J.
DATED : APRIL 02, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. By the consent of the
learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent no.1-State, the matter is taken up for final
hearing. Non-applicant no.2 did not appear in spite of service.
2 APL1095.24 (J).odt
2. The application challenges the order of issuance of process by
the learned Joint Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur, dated
06.02.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Regular Criminal Complaint
Case No. 665/2024.
3. It is not necessary to go into the matrix of the case in detail.
Suffice to say that non-applicant no.2/original complainant has filed a
complaint against the applicant and other four accused alleging that his
father had given the shop block to deceased Satishkumar Sharma, the
husband of accused no.2 and the father of accused nos.1 and 3. The father
of the complainant asked deceased Satishkumar Sharma to vacate the
premises, but he refused to do so. After the death of Satishkumar, accused
nos.1 and 3 occupied the said shop block. They did not pay the rent and
they sub-let the shop block to the present applicant/accused no.4 and
accused no.5 to run the office of Jai Durga Maa Transport and Ganraj
Transport without the consent of the complainant. Therefore, they
committed the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating.
4. Learned Magistrate directed the police to conduct enquiry
under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Police Station,
Chandrapur conducted the enquiry and submitted the report concluding
that the applicant and other accused have committed the alleged offences.
3 APL1095.24 (J).odt
Learned Magistrate after considering the report, passed the order of
issuance of process dated 06.02.2024, which is under challenge in this
application.
5. Bare perusal of the complaint as well as the inquiry report
submitted by Police Station, Chandrapur show that deceased Satishkumar,
the father of accused nos.1 and 3 and the husband of accused no.2, was a
tenant of the father of the complainant on monthly tenancy of Rs.500/-.
Only because accused nos.1 to 3, the legal representatives of deceased
Satishkumar Sharma did not vacate the premises and created sub-tenancy,
it cannot be said that they have committed the offence under Sections 406
and 420 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. Perusal of the complaint as well as
inquiry report clearly demonstrates that the dispute amongst the parties is
of civil nature. In spite of that, surprisingly, the learned Magistrate directed
Police Station, Chandrapur to conduct inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.
More surprisingly, even after having no material or no whisper of
ingredients of any of the offences under Section 406 and 420 r/w 34 of the
IPC in the inquiry report, Police Station, Chandrapur opined the
commission of the offence by the applicant and other co-accused. Learned
Jt.JMFC, Chandrapur, without applying his mind has blindly issued process
against the applicant and other co-accused.
6. Needless to mention, issuance of process against a person is a
4 APL1095.24 (J).odt
serious concern and while issuing process, learned Magistrate has to apply
his mind and see whether the ingredients of the alleged offences are made
out or not, which is completely absent in this case. This is nothing but an
abuse of the process of law. The impugned order of the learned Jt.JMFC,
Chandrapur does not sustain in the eyes of law and therefore, it is required
to be quashed and set aside.
7. Resultantly, the criminal application is allowed.
The order dated 06.02.2024, passed by the learned Joint
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur, issuing process against the
applicant is quashed and set aside. Applicant - Satish @ Munna S/o
Gayacharan Trivedi is discharged from the case i.e. R.C.C. No. 665/2024.
8. The criminal application is disposed of in the above terms.
(M.W.Chandwani, J.)
Diwale
Signed by: DIWALE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/04/2025 18:45:16
