Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1 (BOM)

Asha Shamndas Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra

2014-01-06

ABHAY M.THIPSAY

body2014
ORDER 1. Heard Mr. M.V. Navandar, the learned Counsel for the applicant. Heard Mr. P.N. Muley, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent no.1. Heard Mr. K.P. Chaware, the learned Counsel for the respondent no.2. 2. One Smt. Kamalabai Bajaj, the mother of the applicant, is an accused in Criminal Case No. 225/2011, pending before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Chalisgaon. She was released on bail, in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-, by the learned Magistrate. An application came to be submitted by the said Kamalabai Bajaj, to the Magistrate, praying that she be permitted to offer cash security instead of surety. On this application, the applicant identified Kamalabai Bajaj and posed herself as 'Dr. Advocate'. Another application made by Kamalabai Bajaj, seeking exemption from personal appearance in the court, was also signed by the present applicant by way of identifying the said Kamalabai Bajaj, purporting to be 'Dr. Advocate'. The original complainant in the case against Kamalabai Bajaj made an applicant that, the applicant had posed before the court that, she was an Advocate and had made signatures accordingly on the aforesaid documents. The original complainant prayed that, whether the applicant is indeed an Advocate, needed to be investigated into. On this, the learned Magistrate passed an order directing the Inspector of Police, Chalisgaon Police Station, to investigate whether the applicant is an Advocate, and in case, she was found not to be an Advocate, then 'file case against her', on the basis of the record available in the Magistrate's court. The applicant challenged the order passed by the Magistrate by approaching the Court of Sessions; but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, who heard the Revision Application, dismissed the same. It is under these circumstances, that the applicant has approached this Court invoking its inherent powers and praying that, the order passed by the learned Magistrate and by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in revision, be quashed and set aside. 3. It is not disputed before me that, the applicant had indeed made her signatures on the aforesaid two documents. It is also not disputed before me that, the applicant is not an Advocate. 4. What is submitted before me on behalf of the applicant is that, the applicant is a student of Law, and that, she without understanding the implications thereof, put her signatures on the aforesaid two documents, without any criminal intent. It is also not disputed before me that, the applicant is not an Advocate. 4. What is submitted before me on behalf of the applicant is that, the applicant is a student of Law, and that, she without understanding the implications thereof, put her signatures on the aforesaid two documents, without any criminal intent. It is submitted that, the applicant was not acting with any professional interest, but that, she was merely assisting her mother in securing the necessary orders. 5. Apparently, the signatures made by the applicant are on such documents and have been made in such a manner, as would create a belief that they are of an Advocate. The Magistrate, therefore, thought it necessary to order an investigation into the matter, to find out whether the applicant was an Advocate, or not, which cannot be said to be improper or illegal. 6. Undoubtedly, now the applicant has admitted that, she is not an Advocate. However, the matter still needs to be investigated into, inasmuch as, whether any offence is made out, or can be said to have been committed by the applicant, cannot be decided without such investigation being carried out. If the applicant is admitting having made the signatures, the investigation on some of the aspects would be unnecessary; but it cannot be said that there is a case for quashing the investigation. 7. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that, the matter needs to be viewed sympathetically. This is an aspect which would arise for consideration only after investigation is done, and the investigating agency concludes that the applicant appears to have committed some offence. The question of showing any sympathy to the applicant would arise in the matter of granting bail, but on the basis of any such sympathy, the investigation cannot be prevented. 8. For the protection of her liberty, the applicant, if need arises, may adopt proper legal remedies. 9. No interference, by exercising inherent powers of this Court, is called for. 10. The Criminal Application is dismissed.