Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1982 (BOM)

Kalpana v. Asha

2012-10-12

SHRIHARI P.DAVARE

body2012
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard respective learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties taken up for final hearing. 3. By the present petition filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners prayed that the order, dated 8.2.2012, passed below Exh. 14 in R.C.C. No. 193 of 2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Erandol, as well as the order, dated 20.4.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Criminal Revision Application No. 95 of 2012, be quashed and set aside. 4. Petitioner no.1 claims to be the Manager and petitioner no. 2 claims to be the Chairman of the Poornawad Nagari Cooperative Credit Society, Shirsoli (hereinafter referred to as the said Society). The respondent is the borrower of the said Society. It is alleged that the respondent had filed Regular Criminal Case No. 193 of 2011 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Erandol against the present petitioners and others for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409 420, 468, 470, 166, 167, 169, 206, 207, 210, 219 and 427 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 7.10.2011. 5. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Erandol issued summons to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners appeared in the said case. 6. The petitioners submit that the respondent filed an application on 17.10.2011 at Exh. 7 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Erandol to issue summons to the respondents in R.C.C. No. 193 of 2011. The said application came to be allowed by order, dated 17.10.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Erandol and copy thereof is annexed herewith at Exh. B. 7. Hence, the Chief Manager as well as the Special Recovery Officer of the said Society had filed an application below Exh.9 on 16.11.2011 in R.C.C. No. 193 of 2011 to stay the order passed on 17.10.2011. The respondent herein filed the reply to the said application on 5.12.2011 Exh.10 and clarified that there was no prayer of the respondent herein to call the witness summons to depose before the court on oath and only summons for production of documents was prayed for. Thereafter, the learned trial court passed an order below Exh. The respondent herein filed the reply to the said application on 5.12.2011 Exh.10 and clarified that there was no prayer of the respondent herein to call the witness summons to depose before the court on oath and only summons for production of documents was prayed for. Thereafter, the learned trial court passed an order below Exh. 9 on 28.12.2011 and rejected the said application preferred by the petitioners herein. Further, the respondent herein preferred an application below Exh.14 on 8.2.2012 for the composite prayers that : 1. Witness summons be reissued to the Manager, Poornawad Nagari Coop. Credit Society ciety, Shirsoli to produce the original documents as stated therein; and 2. Manager of the said Society to remain present before the court to depose on oath. The said application came to be allowed by the learned trial court on 8.2.2012. 8. Hence, being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners herein preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 95 of 2012 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. However, the same came to be dismissed by order, dated 20.4.2012 observing that the impugned order was interlocutory order, and therefore, said Criminal Revision Application was not maintainable. 9. Hence, feeling aggrieved by both the orders, dated 8.2.2012, passed below Exh. 14 in R.C.C. No. 193 of 2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Erandol, as well as the order, dated 20.4.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Criminal Revision Application No. 95 of 2012, the petitioners have preferred the present petition for the prayers as set out herein above. 10. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that in compliance of the orders passed on Exh.7 and Exh.14, the petitioners herein have already produced the necessary documents along with Exh. 12 on 25.1.2012 and the said production was allowed by the learned Trial Court and the learned counsel Shri Chatterjee tendered the photo copy thereof and same is taken on record and marked X. Learned counsel Shri Chatterjee, on instructions, stated that production of the documents stated in the said Exh. 12, dated 25.1.2012 suffices the purpose of the respondent herein and the respondent does not require any further document presently. 12, dated 25.1.2012 suffices the purpose of the respondent herein and the respondent does not require any further document presently. Moreover, Shri Chatterjee, learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions, stated that the respondent herein relinquishes the later prayer out of the composite prayers in application Exh.14, dated 8.2.2012 and the respondent shall not insist upon to call the witnesses (accused) as stated therein to depose before the court on oath and the said statement is accepted and taken on record. 11. Besides, it is material to note that the petitioners herein have not challenged the order, dated 28.12.2011 passed by the learned trial court below Exh.9, and therefore, said order stands. Moreover, it also appears that the prayer in Exh.7 and first part of the prayer in Exh.14 have already been complied with by production of the certified copies of documents by the petitioners herein along with Exh. 12 on 25.1.2012 and as stated by Shri Chatterjee, learned counsel for the respondent the purpose of the respondent is sufficed presently with the said production and the learned counsel Shri Chatterjee has not pressed for the later prayer i.e. second prayer of application Exh.14 as mentioned herein above. Besides, there is no question of quashing of the order, dated 20.4.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, since the said order has been passed rightly observing that the said Revision Petition was not maintenable as the impugned order therein was the interlocutory order. 12. With the afore said observations, present petition stands disposed of. Interim relief stands vacated. 13. Rule in the afore said terms. 14. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.