This petition challenged the rejection of an application under Section 156(3) CrPC filed in a service dispute. The Bench upheld the order dismissing the writ, holding that a purely service dispute does not warrant criminal judicial interrogation.
The criminal writ petition was dismissed as the matter was held to be a pure service dispute.
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)
criwp388.21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
925 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.388 OF 2021 ARUNA SEGA GAVIT VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Mr.Ravindra S. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs. G. L. Deshpande, APP for the respondent/State
CORAM:N. R. BORKAR, J.
DATE:24-11-2021
P. C.
. This petition challenges the order dated
05-01-2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Nandurbar in Criminal Revision Application
No. 6 of 2018.
2.By the order impugned the learned
Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the order passed
by the learned Magistrate dated 22-01-2018 in RCC
No. 36 of 2016 by which the application filed by the
petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure came to be rejected.
3.I have heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP for the respondent/State.
1 of 2
(2) criwp388.21
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that respondent Nos. 2 and 3/accused had
prepared false documents i.e. transfer order,
letters and muster-roll. It is submitted that
considering the allegations in the application, the
learned Magistrate ought to have ordered the
investigation.
5.I have perused the orders impugned. It
appears that a report under Section 202 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure was called from the concerned
police station. According to the report, the
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not committed any
offence.
6.I have perused the allegations in the
application filed by the petitioner under Section
156 (3). It is purely service dispute. Therefore, no
interference is called for in the orders impugned.
The petition is dismissed.
VishalK/criwp388.21
2 of 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order rejecting an application under Section 156(3) CPC in a purely service dispute.
Whether the proceedings were maintainable when a report under Section 202 CPC found no cognizable offence.
Whether false documents like transfer order and muster-roll in a service dispute warrant criminal investigation.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
ARUNA SEGA GAVIT
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
N. R. BORKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court