Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1630 (BOM)

Raju s/o. Laxman Jogdande v. State of Maharashtra

2013-08-19

A.I.S.CHEEMA, NARESH H.PATIL

body2013
JUDGMENT : NARESH H. PATlL, J.:- Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The complainant has filed affidavit-in-reply, wherein it is submitted as under: "1. I say and submit that, I have filed private complaint before J.M.F.C. Bhokardan. Dist. Jalna, which is numbered as R.C.C. No. 45/2013. The Ld. Lower Court has directed police authority to investigate the matter. Accordingly C.R. No.9/2013 has been registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 471 & 467 I.P.C. against the present applicant at Bhokardan Police Station. The issue is in respect of land transaction between applicant and me. The grievance raised by me in the complaint is now settled at the instance of the applicant. It is therefore, the present deponent have no grievance against the applicant, in the light of that, appropriate order may kindly be passed." 3. We have perused the complaint. The complainant has made allegations that false agreement for sale was prepared with the forged signature by the petitioner/ accused. Therefore, a complaint was filed for offence under Sections 420, 467 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant has specifically mentioned in para No.3 of the complaint that he has alternate remedy to file a civil suit. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class passed order under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. The photostat copy of the Sallda Pavati dated 4/12/2013 is annexed at Exhibit C to the petition. 5. Both thc learned counsel appearing for contesting parties submit that the parties have settled the dispute. The allegation of forged document has been made. It is a matter of concern that the parties settled such matter and prayed before the Court for quashment of the complaint. The complainant had specifically averred ill the complaint that he had alternate remedy of tiling a civil suit. 6. In the facts of the case, the learned Magistrate ought to have minutely verified the contents of the complaint before passing order under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Passing order under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code liberally without minutely verifying the contents of the complaint puts burden on the investigating machinery. 7. 6. In the facts of the case, the learned Magistrate ought to have minutely verified the contents of the complaint before passing order under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Passing order under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code liberally without minutely verifying the contents of the complaint puts burden on the investigating machinery. 7. As both the parties have prayed for quashing of the F.I.R., we quash and set aside the F.I.R. No.9/2013, registered at Bhokardan Police Station, District Jalna and the proceedings being R.C.C. No.45/2013 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhokardan are quashed and set aside. 8. Rule made absolute. Ordered accordingly.