Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2234 (BOM)

Vaishali v. State of Maharashtra

2013-10-22

ABHAY M.THIPSAY

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Heard the learned APP for State. 3. After the learned counsel for the applicants had advanced his arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted that the applicants have approached this Court without availing of the statutory remedy of filing an application for revision before the Court of Sessions. He pointed out that in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.2, this primary objection has been taken. Indeed, though the applicants appear to be having an alternative statutory remedy, since the matter has been heard and considered on merits, I am not inclined to direct the applicants to approach the Court of Sessions by filing an application for revision. It is settled law that the existence of an alternative efficacious remedy is not a jurisdictional aspect and not to entertain applications invoking the inherent powers of the Court, or its writ jurisdiction, if there would be an efficacious alternative remedy available to a party, is a rule of policy and convenience. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties on merits, there seems to be no point in sending the parties back to the Court of Sessions. 4. The applicants are aggrieved by the order dated 25.03.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rahuri issuing process against them and asking them to appear and answer to the charge of the offences punishable under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 167 of IPC, 120-B of IPC, Section 420 of IPC, 467 of IPC, Section 468 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC, on a complaint alleging the commission of the aforesaid offences lodged by the respondent no.2 herein. They have, therefore, approached this Court invoking its inherent powers. 5. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the respondent no.2 shall hereinafter referred to as the complainant. The substance of the complaint is as follows: That, the complainant is a resident of village Momin Akhada and is one of the persons from the said village, who had made an application for the position of Police Patil. 5. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the respondent no.2 shall hereinafter referred to as the complainant. The substance of the complaint is as follows: That, the complainant is a resident of village Momin Akhada and is one of the persons from the said village, who had made an application for the position of Police Patil. That, one of the eligibility requirements for becoming Police Patil is that such a person should not hold any post and should not be a member of the Gram Panchayat or office bearer such as Sarpanch or Upsarpanch, or a member of any political party. That, the applicant no.1 is the Gram Sevak and her duties include calling of the meetings of the Gram Panchayat and writing the minutes of the meetings of the Gram Panchayat that take place. The applicant no.2 was, at the material time, the member of the Gram Panchayat and Upsarpanch, who had also applied for appointment as a Police Patil. That, the applicant no.2, in order to obtain the position of Police Patil, in collusion with the applicant no.1, tampered with the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat meeting held on 25.1.2013. That, actually, the applicant no.2 had resigned only from his position as a Upsarpanch and his resignation only with respect to his position as Upsarpanch was accepted in the said meeting, but that, later on, the minutes of the meeting were changed to show that the applicant no.2 had tendered resignation with respect to his position as a member of the Gram Panchayat also. Thus, the applicants, acting in collusion with each other, had committed the aforesaid offences. 6. It is clear that the whole basis of the complaint is the allegation that the minutes of the meeting held on 25.01.2013 were tampered with by dishonestly changing the same for the benefit of the applicant no.2. In other words the claim of the complainant is that in the said meeting only the resignation with respect to the membership of the Gram Panchayat was accepted and not with respect to the position of Upsarpanch but that, the minutes were later on tampered by making addition of a word suggesting that resignation even with respect to the position of Upsarpanch was tendered and accepted. 7. The averments in the complaint are, prima facie, absurd and untenable. 8. 7. The averments in the complaint are, prima facie, absurd and untenable. 8. In the first place, admittedly, the complainant was not present at all during the meeting. He does not claim to have derived the knowledge as to what had transpired in the meeting, from anybody present in it. He had, therefore, no means of knowing what transpired in the meeting. The applicant no.1 has clarified that the minutes were not properly written by her earlier, and that, inadvertently, mention of position of Upsarpanch remained to be made while writing the minutes, and that, this mistake or error, was later on corrected. Since the complainant was not present in the meeting, on what basis he claims that the resignation only with respect to the membership of the Gram Panchayat was submitted by the applicant no.2 and only the same was accepted in the meeting, is absolutely unclear. Apparently, the complainant has come across two documents and has noticed that the word Upsarpanch is subsequently added in the minutes of the meeting. On noticing this, he appears to have resorted to making a complaint, taking advantage of this discrepancy. 9. It cannot be ignored that the addition of these words would amount to an offence only if it is indicated that the resignation with respect to the position of Upsarpanch was never tendered and was never accepted in the meeting. As already observed, the complainant is not in a position to make any such claim. 10. Secondly, when the resignation in respect of the membership of the Gram Panchayat was being tendered and was accepted, the question of the applicant no.2 continuing as a Upsarpanch would not arise at all. 11. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the members present in the meeting held on 25.01.2013 have taken any objection to the correction in the minutes stating that the same is not consistent with what had transpired in the meeting. 12. There is, therefore, no substance in the complaint and certainly there is no case for proceeding against any of the applicants with respect to the alleged offences, or any of them. Permitting such proceedings to be continuing would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. The proceedings are, therefore, required to be quashed in the interest of justice. 13. The application is allowed in terms of prayer E. 14. Permitting such proceedings to be continuing would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. The proceedings are, therefore, required to be quashed in the interest of justice. 13. The application is allowed in terms of prayer E. 14. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Ordered accordingly.