Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Milind Kashinath Mahadik, filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Pune against respondent nos. 2, 3, and 4, alleging offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 448, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate examined the petitioner on oath and, under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), ordered a police investigation. After receiving the investigation report, the Magistrate found no sufficient grounds to proceed and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 CrPC on 3rd October 2011. The petitioner challenged this dismissal by filing a revision application before the Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the revision, found no error in the Magistrate's order and rejected the revision. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Bombay High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, also invoking the inherent powers of the Court, seeking to quash the revisional order and to direct issuance of process against the respondent bank. The petitioner was represented by his wife, Smt. Aarti Mahadik, who was permitted to address the Court. The High Court heard the petitioner's wife, the counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3, and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The Court considered the submissions and found no merit in the petition. The Court held that the Magistrate had correctly applied Section 203 CrPC after the investigation revealed no sufficient grounds. The revisional court had also correctly upheld the dismissal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the criminal writ petition, affirming the orders of the lower courts.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Dismissal of Complaint under Section 203 CrPC - Sufficiency of Grounds for Process - The Magistrate, after ordering investigation under Section 202 CrPC and receiving a report, concluded that there were no sufficient grounds to proceed and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 CrPC. The revisional court upheld the order. The High Court, in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, found no error in the concurrent findings and dismissed the petition. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Magistrate was justified in dismissing the complaint under Section 203 CrPC after receiving a police investigation report under Section 202 CrPC, and whether the revisional court and this Court should interfere with that order.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal writ petition, upholding the orders of the Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge.
Law Points
- Section 202 CrPC
- Section 203 CrPC
- Section 406 IPC
- Section 409 IPC
- Section 420 IPC
- Section 448 IPC
- Section 504 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (12) 80
Criminal Writ Petition No.4484 of 2013
Mrs. Aarti Mahadik and Mr. Milind Mahadik (Petitioner in person), Mr. R. Sathyanarayanan i/b M/s H & M Legal Associates (for respondent no.3), Mr. Deepak Thakre (APP for Respondent No.1 State)
The State of Maharashtra & ors
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 CrPC and the rejection of revision by the Sessions Court.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and to direct issuance of process against the respondent bank for the offences mentioned in the complaint.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's complaint was dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203 CrPC after a police investigation under Section 202 CrPC, and the revision against that dismissal was rejected by the Sessions Court.
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune, dismissed the complaint on 3rd October 2011 under Section 203 CrPC. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the revision application against that order.
Issues
Whether the Magistrate was correct in dismissing the complaint under Section 203 CrPC after receiving a police investigation report under Section 202 CrPC?
Whether the revisional court erred in upholding the dismissal?
Whether this Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner's wife argued in support of the petition, seeking quashing of the revisional order and issuance of process.
The counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 opposed the petition.
The APP for the State also opposed the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
The Magistrate, after ordering investigation under Section 202 CrPC and receiving the report, correctly found no sufficient grounds to proceed and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 CrPC. The revisional court found no error in that order. The High Court, under Article 227, found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Magistrate after examining the petitioner on oath, postponed the issue of process, and ordered investigation into the matter by the police, as contemplated under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
After receipt of the report of investigation, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that there were not sufficient grounds for proceeding, and therefore, by an order dated 3rd October 2011, dismissed the complaint, as contemplated under section 203 of the Code.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune, alleging offences under IPC. The Magistrate ordered police investigation under Section 202 CrPC. After receiving the investigation report, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 CrPC on 3rd October 2011. The petitioner filed a revision before the Sessions Court, which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner then filed the present criminal writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 202, 203
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 406, 409, 420, 448, 504, 34
- Constitution of India: Article 227
