Criminal Writ Petitions filed seeking quashment of a First Information Report and investigation order. The High Court held that the alleged facts did not disclose any offence under the IPC, even assuming their truth.
Quashing of the order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the J.M.F.C. and the proceedings arising out of Crime No. 120 of 2011.
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 )
crwp22.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 22 OF 2012
Gajanan s/o. Subhashrao Suryawanshi
Age. 35 years, Occ. Agri.,
R/o. Deul Galli, Loha,
Tal. Loha, District – Nanded.
..Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
..Respondents
2. Chandrakala w/o. Arun Yelge,
Age. 40 years, Occ. Social Worker, R/o. Loha, Tal. Loha, Dist. Nanded.Mr. R.P. Bhumkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.R.K. Ladda, A.P.P. for respondent/State.
Mr. V.B. Jadhavar h/f. Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 23 OF 2012
Sayyad Gause Hydersab
Age. 40 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Loha, Tal. Loha, Dist. Nanded.
..Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
..Respondents
2. Chandrakala w/o. Arun Yelge, Age. 40 years, Occ. Social Worker, R/o. Loha, Tal. Loha, Dist. Nanded.
Mr.R.P.Bhumkar h/f. Mr.V.R.Bhumkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.R.K. Ladda, A.P.P. for respondent/State.Mr. V.B. Jadhavar h/f. Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent No.2.CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 24 OF 2012
1. Rajesh s/o. Govindrao Ghante .. Petitioners Age. 45 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. Loha, Tal. Loha, Dist. Nanded.
( 2 ) crwp22.12
2. Giresh s/o. Narhari Daghe, Age. 27 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. Loha, Tal. Loha, Dist. Nanded.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents 2. Chandrakala w/o. Arun Yelge, Age. 40 years, Occ. Social Worker, R/o. Loha, Tal. Loha, Dist. Nanded.
Mr.P.S.Pawar h/f.Mr.Subhash Chillarge, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.R.K. Ladda, A.P.P. for respondent/State.
Mr. V.B. Jadhavar h/f. Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE,J. DATED : 24.04.2012
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1.All the three writ petitions can be disposed of
by this common judgment and order. By consent of the
parties, the petitions are taken up for final hearing.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3.The petitioners seek quashment of Crime No. 120
of 2011 of Loha Police Station, District – Nanded,
alleging offence punishable under sections 406, 468, 469,
471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant
initially went to the Criminal Court and lodged her
complaint. Somehow, she could convince the learned
Magistrate that he should direct the police to
investigate into her complaint.
( 3 ) crwp22.12
4.The facts mentioned in the complaint in short
can be mentioned as under :-
5.Petitioner-Gajanan Suryawanshi is a politician,
so also the complainant. They belong to a political
party. They are elected Members of Municipal Council,
Loha. It so happened that a sensitive subject came up
for discussion and resolution, in the Municipal Council,
Loha and in order to secure favourable voting by the
Members of the political party, petitioner-Gajanan as
group leader issued a whip to all the Members of his
party including the complainant. Gajanan along with
other two petitioners went to the house of of the
complainant for serving her with the whip of the party on
16.06.2011, but at that time, they did not find the
complainant at home and therefore they pasted a copy of
the whip of the party on the door of the complainant. The
petitioners then prepared a panchanama of what they did
at the house of complainant. Thereafter, the subject in
respect of which the whip was issued came up for
discussion and voting in the Municipal Council.
Petitioner-Gajanan alleged that the complainant had
violated whip of the party and therefore he made
application seeking disqualification of the complainant
as a Member of the Municipal Council. The complainant
opposed the same and proceedings arising out of it is
still pending in this court.
6.On the other hand, the complainant made this
complaint alleging that petitioner-Gajanan posing himself
to be a group leader of the political party, prepared a
false panchanama in respect of service of whip etc. She
made first this complaint to police and then to the
learned Magistrate. Learned Magistrate, as said above,
directed the police to investigate. The questions are
-whether there appears commission of any offence?
-whether this case was fit to start investigation? My
answer is in the NEGATIVE.
7.There was no reason for the learned Magistrate
to pass the impugned order on this complaint. On the
face of it even if what is stated in the complaint is
truthful, no offence punishable under the Indian Penal
Code or any other law, is seen to have been committed.
The complainant was certainly entitled to take up a
defence at he relevant time and proceedings that she was
not served with whip of the party; Gajanan was not Group
Leader; the whip was not lawful etc. etc. But the
allegation that Gajanan and others prepared panchanama
recording falsehood, does not amount to offence of
forgery nor it amounts to cheating. The complaint was
utterly not maintainable and ought to have been dismissed
by the learned Magistrate and so the order passed on it
directing the police to investigate, is erroneous and
deserves to be set aside. The registration of crime is
also liable to be set aside.
8.The Writ Petitions are allowed. The order dated
14.12.2011 passed by the J.M.F.C., Loha and the
proceedings arising out of Crime No. 120 of 2011,
registered with Loha Police Station are quashed and set
aside. Rule made absolute accordingly.
snk/2012/APR12/crwp22.12
***
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the registration of crime No. 120 of 2011 alleging offences under Sections 406, 468, 469, 471 and 420 IPC was maintainable and fit for investigation.
Whether the order of the Judicial Magistrate directing police investigation should be quashed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gajanan s/o. Subhashrao Suryawanshi
Sayyad Gause Hydersab
Rajesh s/o. Govindrao Ghante
Giresh s/o. Narhari Daghe
Chandrakala w/o. Arun Yelge
The State of Maharashtra
A.V. Nirgude
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court