Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2055 (BOM)

Manda Vilas Thorat v. Ashok Gajanan Karale

2019-09-04

SWAPNA JOSHI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Swapna Joshi, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this criminal revision application the applicant has challenged the judgment and order dated 19.06.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Khamgaon in Criminal Revision No. 33/2017. 3. The applicant had filed complaint bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 59/2009 against the respondent before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Shegaon, whereby the learned JMFC had issued the process against the respondent for the offences punishable under sections 418, 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, vide order dated 08.09.2010. The said order passed by the learned JMFC was challenged before the learned Sessions Court at Khamgaon vide Criminal Revision No. 05/2011, which was dismissed. The order passed by the learned Sessions Court dated 10.09.2013 was challenged by the respondent before this Court in Criminal Application (APL) No. 636/2013, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the learned JMFC at Shegaon directed the framing of charges against the respondent for the offences punishable under sections 465, 468 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code. The said order passed by the learned JMFC at Shegaon directing framing of charges against the respondent was challenged by the respondent before the learned Sessions Court at Khamgaon in Criminal Revision No. 33/2017, which was allowed. The said order dated 19.06.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Khamgaon is impugned before this court in the present revision. 4. Heard Shri Mir Nagman Ali, the learned advocate (appointed) for the petitioner and Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, the learned advocate for the respondent. 5. The learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued that although this court has observed in its order dated 30.04.2014, while affirming the order of issuance of process against the respondent-accused, has categorically observed that prima facie there are ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 as well as Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code. This court further observed that the revision application has been rightly dismissed by the learned Magistrate and dismissed Criminal Application (APL) No. 636/2013 filed by the respondent-accused. 6. The learned advocate for the respondent has opposed the contentions of the learned advocate for the petitioner and submitted that the learned Sessions Judge at Khamgaon has rightly passed the order dated 19.06.2018. 7. 6. The learned advocate for the respondent has opposed the contentions of the learned advocate for the petitioner and submitted that the learned Sessions Judge at Khamgaon has rightly passed the order dated 19.06.2018. 7. Thus this Court has in terms observed that there is prima facie case and the complaint bears the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 as well as Section 418 of the Indian Penal code. So also perusal of the complaint and the relevant case papers show that the respondent-accused had made a false statement in the sale deed that there is no dispute in respect of the suit land before any authority, although a dispute was pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer at Khamgaon challenging the mutation entry made by Talathi in the name of the respondent-accused at his instance. The respondent-accused has thus made a false statement. Prima facie there is material on record to frame the charge against the respondent-accused. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances, the following order is passed: ORDER i) The order dated 19.06.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Khamgaon in Criminal Revision No. 33/2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. ii) The order dated 30.03.2017 passed by the learned JMFC at Shegaon in Regular Criminal Case No. 59/2009 directing framing of charges against the respondent is restored to file. iii) The learned JMFC at Shegaon, while framing the charge, should hear both the sides. iv) The learned JMFC at Shegaon shall dispose of the trial within a period of eight months from today. v) Fees of the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner be quantified as per the rules. vi) Criminal Revision Application stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute in above terms.