Single judge rejected the criminal writ petition seeking interference with a revision order directing the Magistrate to reconsider a dismissed private complaint. The court held no interference was called for at this stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 287 OF 2004
Chandrakant Annaso Patil ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. Mansing Shamrao Shinde
and anr. ..Respondents
Mr. N.J. Patil for petitioner.
Mr. D.R. More, APP for State.
CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.
Date : August 27, 2007.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. N.J. Patil the learned counsel for
the petitioner. The petitioner was impleaded as an
accused in a private complaint filed by the respondent
no.1 and registered as Criminal Complaint No.37 of
2000 before the learned JMFC at Ichalkaranji. Instead
of issuing process against the accused in the said
complaint filed for the offence punishable under
Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 469 and 471 of IPC,
the learned Magistrate invoked his powers under
Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and ordered police
investigation. The police submitted report on
27/9/2000. On perusal of the said report the learned
Magistrate specifically observed that the signature on
the subject cheque appeared to be different than other
three cheques and, therefore, the police report was in
:2:
conformity with the complaint averments. Inspite of
these observations, the learned Magistrate dismissed
the complaint on 21/8/2001. The complainant,
therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No.
330 of 2002 which came to be allowed by the learned
IInd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur with
the following operative order:-
". The order passed by the Magistrate
below Exh.1 in Criminal Case No.37 of 2000 is
hereby set aside with directions to J.M.F.C.,
Ichalkaranji to go through the record of the
case and pass the order according to the law."
. Hence, this petition.
2. As directed earlier Mr. N.J. Patil the
learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on
record the investigation report and a perusal of the
same does show that a prima facie case was made out in
support of the allegations in the complaint. It is
the contention of the present petitioner that the
:3:
cheque No.69545 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- drawn
in his favour was dishonoured and, therefore, he filed
a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, the present respondent no.1
filed a private complaint as a counter blast and only
to defeat the complaint which is filed by the
petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881. These are the matters which
will have to be gone through by the learned JMFC while
considering the record as directed by the Sessions
Court vide the impugned order dated 5/1/2004. Whether
to issue the process or to dismiss the complaint is an
issue which the learned JMFC will have to consider
afresh on perusal of the record as available before
him and, therefore, no interference is called for in
the view taken by the revision court. Undoubtedly,
the petitioner also will have to be heard when the
learned Magistrate has been directed to reconsider the
record of the case and passe the appropriate order
according to the law.
3. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily.
Ad-interim order, if any, stands vacated.
:4:
(B.H. Marlapalle,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should intervene while the Magistrate is directed to reconsider the record of a private complaint arising from a counter-blast in Section 138 NI Act proceedings.
5 provisions across 5 enactments
Chandrakant Annaso Patil
Mansing Shamrao Shinde and anr.
B.H. Marlapalle
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court