JUDGMENT - Dr. PRATIBHA UPASANI, J.:---This criminal writ petition is filed by the original complainant M/s. Sonalkar Chemicals, being aggrieved by the order dated 10th March, 1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Revision Application No. 606 of 1994. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, allowed the said Criminal Revision Application for the revision applicants/original accused, and quashed the order of issuance of process passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune in Criminal Case No. 215 of 1994 on 16th June, 1995.

2. Few facts which are required to be stated are as follows:

The complainant filed complaint dated 17th May, 1994 against respondents 1 to 5 for offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant is a proprietary concern and used to supply silver to accused No. 1 company. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are some of the Directors of accused No. 1. The complainant used to covert silver into silver nitrate and for that purpose, the accused used to pay to him labour charges separately. This practice was going on for a very long time, and it was specifically agreed between the parties that the rate would be quoted by the complainant. It was also agreed between the parties, as per the case of the complainant, that the accused would make payment against delivery of silver. This was because the complainant had to obtain loan from the bank for the purpose of purchasing the silver from the open market and had to pay interest to the bank at the rate of 21% for the said loan. However, as the complainant's story goes, the accused used to make delay in paying the bills. In para 6 of the complaint on page No. 15 of the paper book, the complainant has stated that in one such transaction, representation was made to the complainant by the accused persons that his payment would be made and thus, induced him to supply the next delivery of the silver worth Rs. 2,12,535.56 paise. Some cheques were given to the complainant, which were dishonoured, as the accused gave stop payment instructions. The grievance of the complainant therefore, is that right from the beginning, the accused had dishonest intention of not making the payment for the earlier amount due and inspite of that, they further induced the complainant to supply silver, so far as that particular Bill No. 14 is concerned on the pretext that the payment of the earlier bill was cleared. Hence, the complaint.

3. I have heard Ms. Rutuja Ambekar for the petitioner and Mrs. Salvi, the learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 6/State. I have also perused the proceedings.

4. It appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune, issued process against the accused, which was challenged by the accused/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in the Revisional Court and the Revisional Court allowed the said revision and quashed the said order of issuance of process.

5. Ms. Ambekar for petitioner submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge committed error in quashing the process issued by the Magistrate, as he had no jurisdiction to entertain a Revision Application in view of section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. She submitted that issuance of process is a interlocutory order. She relied upon order of this Court reported in 1996(1) Bom.C.R. 395 (Uttam Krishnaji Levarkar v. State of Maharashtra another)1, which says that order issuing process, on exparte consideration of the complaint and material under section 204 is an interlocutory order and is not subject to revision under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. She therefore prays that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, be set-aside.

6. Mr. Salvi, the learned A.P.P. concedes that the Additional Sessions Judge, exercised jurisdiction erroneously in quashing the process issued by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class.

7. After perusing the impugned judgment and the provisions of section 397 of 482 of the Code

Click Here to Read the rest of this document