The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order directing verification of a complaint rather than issuing process under Section 156(3) CrPC. The Bench found the impugned order was based on plausible reasons and no error of jurisdiction or miscarriage of justice was made.
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.
52-wp-3487-2021.doc
Ghuge
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3487 OF 2021
Dnyaneshwar Shantram Rode … Petitioner V/s. Dilip Namdeo Dherenge and Ors … Respondents
Mr. Priyal G Sarda for the petitioner. Mr. Suresh D. Bame for respondent No.1. Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for the State.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : MARCH 13, 2023
P.C.:
1
52-wp-3487-2021.doc
issuance of process. This order was made subject matter of challenge before the learned Revisional Court.
i) Applicant is one of the trustee and accused is another trustee in the same trust. The dispute appears to be in respect of the Trust.
ii) Earlier similar complaint filed by the petitioner was directed to be verified and was fixed for recording verification.
2
52-wp-3487-2021.doc
cognizable offence were made out and therefore the direction was issued to hold an inquiry under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Ultimately, it depends on the nature of the allegations made against the accused persons in the facts of the case for framing the charge the offence is alleged is under Section 393, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. In that view of the matter, the judgment is of no help to the applicant.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the direction by courts below to record verification of the complaint instead of issuing process under Section 156(3) CrPC constitutes illegality.
Whether the lack of prior FIR or direction for inquiry under Section 156(3) CrPC in previous similar complaints negates jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Baban Bhagaji Makale Vs. The State of MaharashtraDistinguished¶19
Baban Bhagaji Makale Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No.301 of 2021 dated 31st August, 2021
Santosh Kumari Vs. State of U.P.Distinguished¶23
Santosh Kumari Vs. State of U.P., 2007 CriLJ 3869 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dnyaneshwar Shantram Rode
Dilip Namdeo Dherenge
Amit Borkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
