Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two criminal revision applications arising from Criminal Complaint No.4 of 2002. The complainant, Riyazuddin Ahmed, filed a complaint against five accused alleging offences under Sections 193, 195, 465, 469 read with Sections 34, 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant claimed to be a Hanafi Sunni Muslim and a social worker. He alleged that the accused conspired to create false and fabricated documents, and on the basis of those documents, accused nos.2 and 3, at the instigation of accused no.1, reported the matter to the police, leading to the lodging of a complaint against the complainant on 22/9/2010 (though the date appears to be a typographical error). The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and issued process. However, the 7th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, by order dated 10/7/2006, discharged accused nos.3 to 5 and dismissed the proceedings against them. The original accused nos.1 and 2 filed Criminal Revision Application No.143 of 2003 challenging the order of the Magistrate, while the complainant filed Criminal Revision Application No.268 of 2006 challenging the discharge order. The High Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed both revisions. The court held that the allegations in the complaint were vague and did not make out any prima facie case against accused nos.3 to 5. The court noted that the complainant had not specified any overt acts by these accused. The discharge order was found to be legal and proper. Consequently, the revision against the discharge was dismissed, and the revision by the accused was also dismissed as the Magistrate's order was not interfered with.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Discharge of Accused - Inherent Powers - The Sessions Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, can discharge accused if no prima facie case is made out - The court held that the allegations in the complaint did not disclose any offence against accused nos.3 to 5, and the discharge was justified (Paras 1-10).
B) Indian Penal Code - Forgery and Fabrication - Sections 193, 195, 465, 469, 34, 109, 120B - The complaint alleged conspiracy to create false documents and insult Islam, but the court found no specific allegations against accused nos.3 to 5 - Held that mere vague allegations are insufficient to proceed with trial (Paras 3-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of discharge passed by the Sessions Court in favour of accused nos.3 to 5 in Criminal Complaint No.4 of 2002 is legal and proper, and whether the revision against the same is maintainable.
Final Decision
Both criminal revision applications are dismissed. The order of discharge passed by the 7th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur dated 10/7/2006 is upheld. The order of the Magistrate issuing process is not interfered with.
Law Points
- Criminal conspiracy
- forgery
- fabrication of documents
- discharge of accused
- inherent powers of court
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 193 IPC
- Section 195 IPC
- Section 465 IPC
- Section 469 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Section 109 IPC
- Section 120B IPC
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (08) 154
Criminal Revision Application No.143 of 2003 and Criminal Revision Application No.268 of 2006
Mr.S.V.Manohar for applicants in CRLRA 143/2003; Mr.Shashibhushan Wahane for respondent in CRLRA 143/2003; Mr.R.S.Parsodkar for applicant in CRLRA 268/2006; Mr.V.M.Deshpande for respondent nos.1 and 2 in CRLRA 268/2006; Mrs.I.L.Bodade, Addl.Public Prosecutor for respondent no.4 in CRLRA 268/2006
Salimbhai s/o Mukhtar Jafarbhai Chimthanawala and Maulana Tayyebbhai Saheb M.R.S.Chimthanawala (in CRLRA 143/2003); Riyazuddin s/o Mohammad Sayyed (in CRLRA 268/2006)
Riyazuddin Ahmed s/o Mohd.Sayeed (in CRLRA 143/2003); Shabbir Ahmed Vidrohi, Shamim Ejaz, Nizamoddin Ansari, State of Maharashtra (in CRLRA 268/2006)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision applications challenging the order of discharge of accused and the order of issuance of process in a private complaint alleging forgery and conspiracy.
Remedy Sought
In CRLRA 143/2003, the accused sought to challenge the order of the Magistrate issuing process; in CRLRA 268/2006, the complainant sought to challenge the order of discharge of accused nos.3 to 5.
Filing Reason
The complainant alleged that the accused conspired to create false documents and used them to lodge a false police complaint against him, insulting Islam.
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and issued process against all accused. The Sessions Court discharged accused nos.3 to 5 and dismissed proceedings against them.
Issues
Whether the order of discharge passed by the Sessions Court in favour of accused nos.3 to 5 is legal and proper.
Whether the revision against the discharge order is maintainable.
Submissions/Arguments
The complainant argued that the Sessions Court erred in discharging accused nos.3 to 5 as there was sufficient material to proceed against them.
The accused argued that the allegations were vague and no prima facie case was made out against them.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the allegations in the complaint were vague and did not disclose any specific overt acts against accused nos.3 to 5. Therefore, the Sessions Court was justified in discharging them. The revision against the discharge was dismissed as without merit.
Judgment Excerpts
The allegations in the complaint are stated in para no.3, wherein it is alleged that as a result of conspiracy hatched by the accused some false and fabricated documents are brought into existence.
The court held that the allegations were vague and did not make out any prima facie case against accused nos.3 to 5.
Procedural History
The complainant filed Criminal Complaint No.4 of 2002 before the Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Court No.4, Nagpur. The Magistrate took cognizance and issued process against all five accused. The accused nos.3 to 5 filed a revision before the Sessions Court, which discharged them by order dated 10/7/2006. The complainant filed Criminal Revision Application No.268 of 2006 challenging the discharge, and the original accused nos.1 and 2 filed Criminal Revision Application No.143 of 2003 challenging the issuance of process. Both revisions were heard together and dismissed by the High Court on 13/8/2010.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 193, 195, 465, 469, 34, 109, 120B
