Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sachin Sopanrao Bhosale, filed a criminal complaint against his wife Pallavi and her father Balasaheb Palande alleging that they had committed offences of perjury, forgery, and cheating in connection with proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The complaint alleged that the respondents had fabricated documents and given false evidence in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 242/2013, which was filed by Pallavi against Sachin. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rahuri, after recording the verification statement of the complainant, issued process against the respondents for offences under Sections 340, 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Sections 191, 193, 196, 199, 200, 181, 182, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Aggrieved, the respondents filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, who by judgment dated 02.05.2022 in Criminal Revision No. 61/2021 quashed the order issuing process, holding that the complaint was an abuse of the process of court. The complainant then approached the High Court by way of a criminal writ petition. The High Court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction at the stage of issuance of process and held that the Sessions Judge had exceeded his jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence and substituting his own view. The Court noted that the Magistrate had applied his mind and found a prima facie case, and the revisional court could not interfere unless the process was illegal or improper. The High Court set aside the revisional order and restored the Magistrate's order issuing process, directing the trial court to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Perjury and Forgery - Sections 340, 344 CrPC, Sections 191, 193, 196, 199, 200, 181, 182, 420 IPC - Complaint alleging that wife and her father fabricated documents and gave false evidence in domestic violence proceedings - Magistrate issued process after recording verification statement - Sessions Judge in revision quashed process holding complaint was abuse of process - High Court held that Sessions Judge exceeded revisional jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence at pre-trial stage - Held that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate need only be satisfied of a prima facie case, and the Sessions Judge could not substitute his own view unless the process was illegal or improper (Paras 5-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sessions Judge was justified in quashing the process issued by the Magistrate in a complaint alleging perjury and forgery in domestic violence proceedings, and whether the complaint disclosed sufficient grounds for proceeding.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge dated 02.05.2022, and restored the order of the Magistrate issuing process. The trial court was directed to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Perjury
- Forgery
- Abuse of Process of Court
- Maintenance of Complaint
- Cognizance of Offence
- Revision against Issuance of Process
- Scope of Revisional Court
