Criminal Writ Petitioner invoked constitutional jurisdiction to challenge the dismissal of a complaint alleging theft and house entry. The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Magistrate and Sessions Court did not act illegally or perversely.
The Criminal Writ Petition was dismissed.
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
CWP-851.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 851 OF 2012
ANIL BAPU INGAWALE
.. PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.. RESPONDENTS
Mr. Chetan G. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. G. P. Mulekar, APP for the State
CORAM:-ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 23/07/2013
P.C.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None
appears for the respondent Nos. 2 to 6, in spite of notice. Heard Mrs. G. P. Mulekar, the learned APP for the State.
2 The petitioner had filed a complaint against respondent Nos. 2 to 6 herein (“respondents” for convenience). The respondent No. 3, is the wife of the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 herein is the father of the respondent No. 3
1/7
2
CWP-851.12
and respondent No. 4 is her brother. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are said to be close relatives of the respondent No. 3.
3 In his complaint, the petitioner alleged that the aforesaid respondents and one Shri Shivaji Sanpe (original accused No. 2) had committed offences punishable under sections 380 IPC, 386 IPC, 451 IPC, 454 IPC r/w Section 34 of the IPC. After examining the petitioner on oath, the learned Magistrate directed investigation under the provisions of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Code”). Accordingly the mater was investigated into by the subinspector of police, Peth Wadgaon Police Station, who submitted a report to the effect that, no offences were made out, and that the allegations in the complaint were not substantiated. After considering this report and all other relevant aspects of the matter, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint by his order dated 29/6/2010.
2/7
3
CWP-851.12
4 The petitioner approached the court of sessions,
Kolhapur, challenging the order passed by the Magistrate, dismissing the complaint, but the court of sessions dismissed the revision application.
5 Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has
approached this court, invoking its constitutional jurisdiction.
6 I have gone through the copy of the complaint, the
copy of the report of investigation submitted by the police, the impugned order passed by the Magistrate, and also the order passed by the court of sessions in revision.
7 The facts alleging commission of offences are found in para 6 of the complaint. The petitioner has stated therein that, he had met with an accident in October 2005 and that, therefore, he had gone to his native place Radhanagari;
3/7
4
CWP-851.12
that, at that time the respondents had broken open the lock put to his house and had entered inside the house unauthorizedly. It is also alleged that, the water tank, iron staircase, gas cylinders and building material were stolen by the respondents. The original accused No. 2 had allegedly encouraged the respondents to commit the aforesaid offences. It is also stated that, the respondent No. 3 had obtained the electricity meter and water meter in her name, to show that she was residing in the premises belonging to the petitioner. It is also stated that, a suit for injunction has been filed by the petitioner, and that the same is pending in civil court.
8 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, there has been no proper investigation into the matter and the police merely recorded the statements of the accused persons themselves, who denied the alleged offences, and that based on such denials, the police concluded the complaint to be
4/7
5
CWP-851.12
false. According to him, this was not proper and the police ought to have examined the petitioner and carried out further investigation into the matter.
9 It is apparent that, there are matrimonial disputes
between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3. The complaint filed by the petitioner itself indicates that, a case in respect of an offence punishable u/s 498-A of the IPC is pending against the petitioner. It also appears that the respondent No. 3 has filed proceedings u/s 125 of the Code against the petitioner. The petitioner has also filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, which is also pending.
10 It is evident that, in respect of the alleged incident, which took place some time in October 2005, the petitioner had filed a complaint only on 26/5/2009 i.e. after a gap of about four years. There is no satisfactory explanation for this delay.
5/7
6
CWP-851.12
A feeble attempt has been made to say that, the petitioner attempted to lodge a report with the police, but that, the police did not record the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that, a letter was written to the Superintendent of Police on 23rd of May, 2009, but even in that letter as to why the petitioner could not write a letter or sent a written communication to the police, for a period of four years after the incident, has not been explained. It appears that the wife of the petitioner claims to be residing in the place, which according to the petitioner, belongs to him.
11 Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, the Magistrate did not think it fit to proceed further in the matter. The revisional court also considering, inter alia , vagueness of the allegations and the delay in levelling them, held that, no interference in the matter was called for.
6/7
7
CWP-851.12
12 After considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, I
do not think that a case for invoking the writ jurisdiction and interfering with the order passed by the magistrate, and that of the sessions court, is made out. The reasoning of the magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be said to be patently illegal or perverse.
13 The petition is dismissed.
(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)
md.saleem
7/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should invoke its writ jurisdiction to interfere with the dismissal of a criminal complaint by the Magistrate and its dismissal in revision.
Whether the allegations of criminal offences were patently illegal or perverse given the delay in filing the complaint and the nature of the dispute.
7 provisions across 2 enactments
Anil Bapu Ingawale
State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Abhay M. Thipsay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
