Mahadev Babu Makhare v. Gorakh Mahipat Makhare And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4960 OF 2018 Mahadev Babu Makhare

...Petitioner

Versus

Gorakh Mahipat Makhare And Ors.

...Respondents

....

Mr. Vilas Tapkir, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the Respondent - State.

CORAM

:

PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DATE :

21st SEPTEMBER, 2022.

PER COURT :

1.

The Petitioner is the original complainant. He filed private complaint before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indapur, Pune (Rural) for offences punishable under Sections 167, 191, 192, 193, 196, 197, 198, 202 & 212 read with section 34 of Indian Penal on Code 23rd February, 2005. Vide order dated 23rd June, 2005, report was called under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. By order dated 24th April, 2009 process was issued against accused Nos.1 and 2 for offences punishable under Section 193, 196, 197, 198 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Evidencebefore charge was recorded. The complainant examined five witnesses. Certain documents were brought in evidence. Vide order dated 31st January, 2018. The respondents were discharged as per Section 245(1) of Cr.P.C. The Petitioner/complainant is aggrieved by said

order.

2.

Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that, there was sufficient evidence against the Respondents. The trial Court has committed an error in discharging the Respondents. There was prima-facie case was made out. There was sufficient evidence against the Respondents. The evidence of the witnesses discloses prima-facie case against the Respondents/Accused. The order is contrary to evidence on record. The Court has committed an error in observing that offences are not made out against the respondents on the surmises that civil proceedings are pending against parties. 3.

I have perused the documents. The complainant had alleged that, there was civil dispute between accused No.1 and complainant, Accused No.1 procured certified copy dated 14th August, 1984 of register of Vaccination issued by accused No.2. Certified copy is in respect of vaccination of accused No.2 dated 1st May, 1949. Zilla Parishad came into existence in 1961-1962. How it is possible that, accused No.2 could issue certified copy of document dated 1st May, 1945. Thus accused fabricated documents to obtain decree in favour of accused No.1.

4.

Evidence before charge was recorded. The learned Magistrate meticulously examined the evidence on record. The Court analyzed the evidence of witnesses. The complainant made

several other allegations. The Court took into consideration, the litigation against parties. The Court opined that no prima-facie inference can be drawn that accused about commission of offences and discharged them, on perusal of impugned order and other documents on record. There is no reason to take different view. The material on record is not sufficient to proceed further against the Respondents. Hence, application deserves to be rejected.

ORDER

i. Criminal Writ Petition No.4960 of 2018 stands rejected and disposed off accordingly.

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)