SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Bom) 1433

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.S. SHINDE, S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.
Devidas & Others - Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Another - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 379 of 2017
Decided On : 08-09-2017

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel i/b D.S. Bagul, Advocate
For the Respondents:V.M. Kagne, APP, C.R. Deshpande, Advocate

The application under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. should be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant, who seeks invocation of jurisdiction of the Magistrate.

Headnote:

The Court quashed the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, directing registration of the first information report and consequently the F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. 14 of 2017 registered on the basis of the same. The Court held that the application under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. should be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant, who seeks invocation of jurisdiction of the Magistrate. In an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible.

Fact of the Case:

The complainant, respondent no.2, filed a complaint with the Deopur Police Station alleging that the accused, petitioners, while repaying the loan availed from the complainant's cooperative society, availed concession/rebate on the rate of interest of loan. The complainant withdrew the complaint and filed a fresh complaint under sections 406, 409, 417, 418, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1999 (M.P.I.D. Act, 1999). The Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, allowed the complaint and directed registration of an FIR. The petitioners challenged the order.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the application under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. should be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant, who seeks invocation of jurisdiction of the Magistrate. In an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. The Court also held that the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, was cryptic and without assigning any valid reasons for invoking provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the M.P.I.D. Act. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the case of HDFC Securities Limited cannot be made applicable in the facts of the present case, when there is no affidavit sworn by respondent no.2 in support of averments in the Misc. Application and order suffers from non-application of mind.

Issues: 1. Whether the application under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. should be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant, who seeks invocation of jurisdiction of the Magistrate? 2. Whether the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, was cryptic and without assigning any valid reasons for invoking provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the M.P.I.D. Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the application under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. should be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant, who seeks invocation of jurisdiction of the Magistrate. In an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. 2. The Court held that the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, was cryptic and without assigning any valid reasons for invoking provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the M.P.I.D. Act. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the case of HDFC Securities Limited cannot be made applicable in the facts of the present case, when there is no affidavit sworn by respondent no.2 in support of averments in the Misc. Application and order suffers from non-application of mind.

Final Decision: The Court quashed the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, directing registration of the first information report and consequently the F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. 14 of 2017 registered on the basis of the same.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Shinde, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This Petition is filed with the following prayers:

“C. By way of appropriate order or direction in the like nature, the impugned proceeding bearing No. 22/2017 filed by present respondent no.2 in the Court of learned District Sessions Court, Dhule under sections 406, 409, 417, 418, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3 and 4 of the M.P.I.D. Act, may kindly be quashed and set aside. D. By way of appropriate order or direction in the like nature, the impugned order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Dhule in proceeding bearing No.22/2017 filed by present respondent no.2 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Court, Dhule under sections 406, 409, 417, 418, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3 and 4 of the M.P.I.D. Act, may kindly be quashed and set aside. E. By way of appropriate order or direction in the like nature, the F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 14/2017 registered with Deopur Police Station in pursuance to the order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the learned District and Sessions Court, Dhule for the offence punishable under sections 406, 409, 417, 418, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3 and 4 of the M.P.I.D. Act, may kindly be quashed and set aside.”

3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, initially, on 10th April, 2016, present respondent no.2 approached the Police Officer under section 154(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) with a single allegation that, the accused while repaying the loan has availed concession/rebate on the rate of interest of loan. Thereafter, he filed the complaint under the provisions of Indian Penal Code bearing Criminal Misc. Application No.875/2016 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Dhule. Thereafter, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class vide its order dated 12th August, 2016 passed the order that, “I do not think it necessary to send the case for investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.. Hence put up for verification”. He submits that, thereafter the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, vide its order dated 17th August, 2016 directed the complainant to lead evidence vide Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C. Lastly, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class vide order dated 6th September, 2016 fixed the matter for argument. He submits that, on 21st December, 2016, the complainant has withdrawn the Criminal Complaint on the pretext that, he got more documentary evidence after inquiry under the Right to Information Act. As such, there is sufficient evidence against the accused for commission of an alleged offences, therefore, he had withdrawn the said complaint with permission to file a fresh complaint.

4. Learned Senior counsel submits that, after withdrawal of the said complaint, the complainant was duty bound to first approach under section 154 of Cr.P.C. to an officer Incharge of Police Station, and to produce the additional material, which he has received under Right to Information Act. However, without availing of the remedy under section 154 of Cr.P.C., an immediately within a period of two months from withdrawing an earlier complaint and without producing any additional material/allegations, present respondent no.2 has filed Criminal Misc. Application No.22/2017, before the District and Sessions Court, Dhule, by merely adding sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1999 (for short M.P.I.D. Act, 1999). He submits that, the District and Sessions Judge, Dhule, while passing the impugned order dated 28th February, 2017, has not applied his mind, and further directed registration of an offence taking recourse to section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., without assigning single reason and in contravent


































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top