Dismissed

Subhash Eknath Salunkhe . v. Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha and Anr. .

Bombay HC10 Nov 2009WP/1333/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Criminal Writ Petition dismissed the petition challenging the Chief Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate's order issuing process. The court held the respondent had locus standi as they were aggrieved by a forged certificate and saw no error in the trial order.

What did the court decide?

The rule was discharged; the Chief Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate was directed to proceed with the trial.

Subhash Eknath Salunkhe . Vs Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

mpt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1333 OF 2000

¶5

Subhash Eknath Salunke ... Petitioner versus Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha & Anr. ... Respondents

¶6

Mr. Vijay Killedar i/b Nitin Jamdar for the petitioner None present for the respondent no.1

¶7

Mr.K.V.Saste APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 10th November 2009

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None present for the respondent.

¶11

By this petition, petitioner challenges the order dated 3rd July 1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate, Satara issuing process and the order dated 18th July 2000 passed by the Court of Sessions dismissing the Criminal Revision Application against the said order.

¶12

¶13

The petitioner was employed as a teacher in the School run by the respondent no.1. Respondent filed a private complaint which is numbered as 150 of 1998 in the Court of Chief Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate, Satara alleging therein that in the proceedings before the School Tribunal relating to the promotion of a person over the petitioner, the petitioner had filed a forged certificate. By producing the said certificate according to the respondent, the petitioner had committed an offence punishable u/s.193, 198, 200, 463, 464 and 465 of the IPC. The necessary averments making out the ingredients of the alleged offence were made in the complaint. After recording the verification, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by an order dated 3rd July 1998 directed issuance of process. Aggrieved by the order of issuance of process, the petitioner moved the Court of Sessions in revision. By an order dated 18th July 2000, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Satara dismissed the revision application. That order is impugned in the present writ petition.

¶14

It was alleged before the Court of Sessions that the complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint u/s.195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that the respondent was not an aggrieved party. I am unable to agree. The certificate issued by the respondent was altered and the altered certificate was produced in a proceeding to which the respondent was a party. As such the respondent was a person aggrieved.

¶15

The learned Sessions Judge has held that there was a prima facie material to show that alterations were made in the certificate by adding as additional sentence at the end. Since there is a prima facie

¶16

¶17

material and the forgery was made in the certificate and was produced before the School Tribunal, it cannot be said that the Magistrate erred in issuing the process. I see no error in the view taken by the Magistrate and confirmed by the Court of Sessions. In the circumstances, Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶18

Rule is discharged. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law.

Subhash Eknath Salunkhe . v. Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha and Anr. .

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Eknath Salunkhe . v. Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha and Anr. .

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Harishchandra Mangela Vs the State of Maharashtra

Alam Khan Basir Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sharad Shivdarshan Birajdar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepak Lotan Desale Vs Dadaji Dagdu Bhuse

Shri Arvind Maruti Jadhav . Vs Mr. Shivaji Anand Pawar and 01 Anr. .

Kamal Singh Sokhi Vs M/S. Lok Housing and Construction Ltd. and Another