Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, original accused no.5 in Criminal Case No.259/1986 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangamner, challenged the order dated 1.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner in Criminal Revision Application Nos.294/2000 and 296/2000. The revisions had been filed against the order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint, but the revisional court allowed the revisions and directed issuance of process against the accused for offences under sections 166, 192, 199, 466 r/w 109 IPC. The allegations involved a false pencil entry in revenue records made in collusion with local revenue officials. The High Court, after hearing submissions, found that the revisional court had correctly appreciated the evidence and the charge framed, and there was no ground to interfere with the order. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Inquiry under Section 202 - Revisional Jurisdiction - The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class had dismissed the complaint after inquiry under Section 202 CrPC, but the revisional court set aside the dismissal and ordered issuance of process. The High Court held that the revisional court's order was justified as there was prima facie material to proceed against the accused for offences under sections 166, 192, 199, 466 r/w 109 IPC. (Paras 2-3)
B) Indian Penal Code - Offences of Forgery and Criminal Misconduct - Sections 166, 192, 199, 466, 470, 465 - The allegations pertained to a false pencil entry in revenue records made in collusion with revenue officials. The court found that the revisional court correctly appreciated the evidence before charge and the charge framed, and no interference was warranted. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of the Additional Sessions Judge directing issuance of process against the petitioner was legally sustainable and whether the writ petition challenging the revisional order should be allowed.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 1.11.2003.
Law Points
- Section 202 CrPC inquiry
- Section 397 CrPC revisional jurisdiction
- prima facie case for issuance of process
- scope of interference in writ jurisdiction
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (06) 4
Criminal Writ Petition No. 550 of 2003
Smt Madhaveshwari Mhase for petitioner, Mrs V.A. Shinde APP for Respondent 5, Mr R L Kute for R No. 2 and 3
Machindra Chandrabhan Pansare, Vitthal s/o Bhaurao Gunjal, Martand s/o Ganpat Sabale, Sampat Krushnaji Ghorpade (abated), The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging the order of Additional Sessions Judge in criminal revision which set aside dismissal of complaint and ordered issuance of process.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (original accused no.5) sought to quash the order dated 1.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner in Criminal Revision Application Nos.294/2000 and 296/2000.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the revisional court's order directing issuance of process against him for offences under IPC.
Previous Decisions
The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangamner had dismissed the complaint on 7.11.1987 after inquiry under Section 202 CrPC. That dismissal was challenged in Criminal Revision Petition No.372/1989 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, who allowed the revision on 14.2.1993 and ordered issuance of process. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the revisional order.
Issues
Whether the revisional court's order directing issuance of process was legally sustainable?
Whether the High Court should interfere with the revisional order in its writ jurisdiction?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the revisional court erred in setting aside the dismissal of the complaint.
Respondents supported the revisional order, contending that there was prima facie material to proceed.
Ratio Decidendi
The revisional court had correctly appreciated the evidence before charge and the charge framed, and there was prima facie material to proceed against the accused for the alleged offences. No interference was warranted in writ jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
Present petition questions the order dated 1.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner in Criminal Revision Application No.294/2000 (old No.67/1998) as also Criminal Revision No.296/2000 (old 71/1998) whereby both the revision applications were dismissed and record and proceedings of the lower Court was transmitted back.
The accusations were in respect of alleged collusion between the petitioner and local Revenue Officials for effecting false pencil entry in revenue record which remained operative for years.
Procedural History
The complaint was filed in 1986. The Magistrate ordered inquiry under Section 202 CrPC and received police report on 24.7.1987. On 7.11.1987, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint. The complainant filed Criminal Revision Petition No.372/1989 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, who allowed it on 14.2.1993 and ordered issuance of process. The petitioner then filed Criminal Revision Application Nos.294/2000 and 296/2000 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner, which were dismissed on 1.11.2003. The present writ petition was filed in 2003 and decided on 14.6.2013.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 166, 192, 199, 200, 466, 470, 465, 109
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 202, 397
