In this criminal writ petition, the original complainant challenged the revision order allowing respondents to challenge the process issued for offences under Sections 406 and 408 IPC. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding no prima facie case existed for misappropriation.
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.
wp-13-13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
rpa
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 13 OF 2013
Dadasaheb R. Patil .. Petitioner
Vs.
Babaso Ganpati Chagule & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Prakash Mahadik, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. D. R. More, A.P.P. for Respondent No. 5.
CORAM : K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.
DATED : AUGUST 6, 2013.
P.C. :
Heard.
2 Process was issued against respondents in Regular Criminal Case No. 49 of 2004 by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tasgaon for the offence punishable under Section 406, 408 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, same was questioned in Criminal Revision Application No.104 of 2010 and revision of the respondents was allowed hence original complainant is before this Court in Writ Petition.
3 The gravemen of allegations against the
respondents are, they were working as Chairman of the Multipurpose Co-operative Society Nimani while Respondent no.2 was the secretary of said Society. A false no dues certificate was issued to respondent nos.3 and 4 (original accused nos.3 and 4) and hence allegedly committed offence. The nature of allegations does not demonstrate that any misappropriation was caused to the amounts of the society. The learned Sessions Judge rightly found that there was no prima facie case made out for infraction of Sections 406 and 408 of the Indian Penal Code as against respondent nos. 1 and 2 (original accused nos.1 & 2). Even the complaint petition was silent about any misappropriation carried by the Chairman and Secretary. The order of learned Sessions Judge, Sangli does not call for interference. However, all points agitated between the parties in the Writ Petition are kept open.
(K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.)
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order of the Sessions Judge allowing revision of respondents and quashing the process against them calls for interference in a writ petition filed by the original complainant.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Dadasaheb R. Patil
Babaso Ganpati Chagule
K. U. CHANDIWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
