Back
2014 Supreme(Bom) 2507
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.M. Thipsay, J.
Shrikant Purshottam Paranjape – Appellant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 2827, 2828 of 2013 and Criminal Revision Application Nos. 347, 348 of 2013
Decided On : 30-09-2014
For the Appellant :Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate, Prasad B. Kulkarni, Abhijeet A. Desai and Vrushali L. Maindad, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate, Prasad B. Kulkarni, Advocate and Deepak Thakre, A.P.P.
The distinction between civil trespass and criminal trespass was crucial in determining the accused's liability for the alleged offenses.
Headnote:
Forgery - Criminal Trespass - IPC 447, 454, 465, 467, 468, 506 - The court found that the accused were involved in criminal trespass but not in forgery or related offenses. The court held that the acts attributed to the accused amounted to civil trespass and not criminal trespass. The order maintaining the process for the offense punishable under IPC 447 read with Section 34 was found to be not in accordance with law.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged that the accused trespassed on his land and claimed ownership based on bogus documents. The accused contended that the land was validly purchased by them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused were involved in criminal trespass but not in forgery or related offenses. The court held that the acts attributed to the accused amounted to civil trespass and not criminal trespass. The court also noted that the offense of criminal intimidation was not claimed by the complainant in the complaint.
Issues: The main issue was whether there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused persons based on the allegations of forgery and connected offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the accused were not involved in forgery or related offenses, and the order maintaining the process for the offense punishable under IPC 447 read with Section 34 was not in accordance with law. The court also noted that the offense of criminal intimidation was not claimed by the complainant in the complaint.
Final Decision: The petitions were allowed in terms of prayer clause (b), and the revision applications were dismissed.
1. These two writ petitions and these two revisions applications can be disposed of conveniently by this common order as the parties are the same and the challenge in all these proceedings is to two identical orders dated 5th July, 2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 535 of 2011 and 536 of 2011.
2. By consent, rule is issued in both the petitions and is made returnable forthwith. By consent, the revision applications are admitted and taken up for hearing finally forthwith.
3. The petitioners in criminal writ petition no. 2827 of 2013 and 2828 of 2013 are the accused in R.C.C. No. 04002464 of 2011, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Pune. The said case arises on a complaint filed by the respondent no. 2 in these petitions, who is also the applicant in the revision application nos.347 and 348 of 2013.
4. For the sake of convenience and clarity the respondent no. 2 in the writ petitions who is the applicant in the revision applications, shall be referred to as 'the complainant'; and the petitioners in writ petition, who are the respondents in the revision applications, shall be referred to as 'the accused'.
5. The complainant filed a complaint against the accused alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 IPC, 409 IPC, 420 IPC, 447 IPC, 454 IPC, 465 IPC, 467 IPC, 468 IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate, on examining the complainant on oath and on examining the documents produced by him, ordered process to be issued against all the accused persons with respect to the offences punishable under Sections 447 IPC, 454 IPC, 465 IPC, 467 IPC, 468 IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC.
6. Being aggrieved thereby, the accused persons approached the Court of Sessions by filing two different revision applications i.e. some of them filed one revision application and some of them filed the other (Revision Application Nos.535 of 2011 and 536 of 2011). The learned Sessions Judge disposed of both the revision applications by separate but fully identical orders. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that no case for proceeding with respect to any of the offences against any of the accused, except the offence punishable under Section 447 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC was made out. He was of the view that a case in respect of an offence punishable under Section 447of the IPC was, however, made out against the accused persons. He, therefore, quashed the process so far as it related to the other offences but maintained the process so far as it related to the offence punishable under Section 447 of the IPC.
7. The accused persons were not satisfied with the limited success which they had before the revisional Court and have therefore filed the present writ petitions challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision, insofar as it maintains the process issued by the Magistrate against the accused persons with respect to the offence punishable under Section 447 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. The complainant, obviously, is aggrieved by the order passed by the Sessions Court insofar as it quashed the process issued against the accused persons with respect to all other offences except the one punishable under Section 447 of the IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. This is how these four proceedings arise out of one and the same order.
8. I have heard Mr.Shirish Gupte, learned counsel for the accused persons. I have heard Mr.Abhijeet Desai, the learned counsel for the complainant. With their assistance, I have gone through the complaint, the other annexures to the petition and more particularly the order passed by the Magistrate issuing process, as also the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision.
9. The complainant's case, in brief, is that he owns a certain land which had been given to his ancestor by the then Governor of Bombay in the year 1870.
