Sachin Bansilal Tarange v. The State Of Maharashtra

Seema 24. Criminal Application 1216 of 2018.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1216 OF 2018 Sachin Bansilal Tarange ...Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

---------- Veerdhawal Kakade - Advocate for the applicant. Rutuja Ambekar - APP for the Respondent - State. ---------- CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

DATE : 16th OCTOBER 2019.

P.C. :

The applicant is the original complainant. So acting on his complaint, Indapur P. S. registered FIR No. 468 of 2017. The Indapur police has investigated the crime against 3 accused. Eventually, they filed the B Summary report holding that no case is made out. The learned JMFC of Indapur accepted the B summary report and closed the case. But the learned JMFC has not issued notice to the applicant-original complainant before his accepting the police version. So the complainant has filed this Criminal Application.

2. In the meanwhile, even the police have issued Exh. E show cause notice as to why the applicant should not be prosecuted by lodging a false complaint.

1/2

Seema 24. Criminal Application 1216 of 2018.odt

3. Heard Veerdhawal Kakade, the learned counsel for the applicant, and Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, the learned APP for the respondent-State.

4. After police filed B Summary report, the learned JMFC did not put the complainant on notice, though it is mandatory. To that extent, the complainant has been denied a fair opportunity.

5. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 2nd July, 2018, filed at Exh. E. As a consequence the Exh. E show cause notice dated 22.06.2018, issued by the police is also set aside. As a result, the learned JMFC, Indapur, will issue notice to the applicant on the B summary report the police filed and then proceed further.

Accordingly, the Criminal Application stands disposed of. [DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.] 2/2