Back
2021 Supreme(Bom) 681
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Rohit B.Deo, J.
Nitin - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Application (Apl) No. 208 of 2014
Decided On : 09-02-2021
Yogesh Nagpure, Advocate, S.S.Doifode, Advocate, P.V.Navlani, Advocate
The main legal point established is that a strong suspicion against the accused, based on material that can be translated into evidence at trial, is required to proceed with the trial.
Headnote:
Criminal Writ Petition - Discharge from Offences - Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 420, 423, 34
Fact of the Case:
Mr. Nitin Kadam lodged a report leading to the registration of a case under IPC Sections 420 and 423 against Mrs. Savita Dode and Mr. Rajendra Jadhav. The revisional court allowed Mr. Jadhav's discharge but rejected Mrs. Dode's. The report indicated no privity of contract between the accused and Mr. Kadam, and the court found no case to proceed against the accused for the alleged offences.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing by the accused towards Mr. Kadam, and the reasons given by the Sessions Judge to not discharge Mrs. Dode were deemed convoluted and speculative.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to proceed against the accused for offences under IPC Sections 420 and 423.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle that a strong suspicion against the accused, based on material that can be translated into evidence at trial, is required to proceed with the trial. The court also emphasized that the evidence is not to be weighed as if a trial is being conducted at the stage of framing charges.
Final Decision: Criminal Application (APL) 208/2014 is allowed, discharging Mrs. Savita Dode from the alleged offences, while Criminal Writ Petition 175/2014 challenging the discharge order in favor of Mr. Rajendra Jadhav is rejected.
JUDGMENT
ROHIT B.DEO,J. - Criminal Writ Petition 175/2014 and Criminal Application (APL) 208/2014 are heard and decided by this common judgment since both assail the common judgment dated 21-12-2013 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Amravati in Criminal Revision No. 86/2012 and Criminal Revision No. 88/2012.
2. Mr. Nitin Babarao Kadam who is the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition 175/2014 lodged report with the Badnera Police Station on the basis of which Crime 77/2010 was registered under Section 420 and 423 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Mrs. Savita Dode who is the applicant in Criminal Application (APL) 208/2014 and Mr. Rajendra Jadhav were arraigned as accused. Culmination of the investigation resulted in submission of the final report in Regular Criminal Case 840/2010.
3. Mr. Rajendra Jadhav and Mrs. Savita Dode preferred applications, Exhibit 13 and Exhibit 21 respectively seeking discharge. The learned Magistrate was pleased to reject both the applications.
4. Mr. Rajendra Jadhav and Mrs. Savita Dode then approached the revisional court under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code) challenging the refusal of the learned Magistrate to discharge them from the offences. Vide judgment dated 21-12-2013 which is impugned herein, the revision preferred by Mr. Rajendra Jadhav is allowed and the revision preferred by Mrs. Savita Dode is rejected.
5. As noted supra, Mrs. Savita Dode is aggrieved since her discharge application is not considered favourably by the Courts below and Mr. Nitin Kadam is aggrieved to the extent Mr. Rajendra Jadhav is discharged.
6. It would be necessary to note certain facts which are discernible from the material placed on record along with the final report.
7. These facts and events are culled out in paragraph 5 of the judgment impugned which are as under :
1 Savita's mother was owner of the property S.No. 274/3, admeasuring 1H 62R,
2 10/03/2001 Savita (A-1) executed unregistered agreement to sell in favour of Rajendra (A-2) when she was not owner.
3 18/09/2001 Rajendra sent telegraphic notice to Savita.
4 24/12/2002 Savita's mother died and Savita became owner of the property.
5 06/03/2003 Savita executed registered Special Power of Attorney to Yogiraj to sell the suit property and to do all the relevant acts in connection therewith.
6 06/03/2003 Savita executed possession receipt and acknowledgment of receiving Rs. 9,50,000/- from him towards price of the field, S.No. 274/3 1H 62R.
7 04/04/2003 Rajendra issued notice to Savita
8 01/07/2003 Yogiraj sold the suit field to Chhaya Ghurde for Rs. 6,22,500/- on 30/06/2003. It's mutation recorded on 01/07/2003 and confirmed on 17/07/2003 page No. 55.
9 30/07/2003 Rajendra filed RCS No. 154/2003 against Savita for specific performance.
10 16/10/2003 Savita served, appeared, but did not file written statement and did not contest.
11 01/03/2004 Application to file written statement Exh. 12 rejected.
12 06/04/2004 Affidavit filed and the suit decreed.
13 Savita preferred no appeal.
14 28/04/2004 Savita filed R.C.S. No. 104/2004 against Yogiraj and Chhaya for declaration, injunction and possession. Savita admitted to have executed acknowledgment thereof. She mentioned about her transaction with Rajendra in the suit.
15 25/05/2004 Chhaya served with summons.
16 04/06/2004 Chhaya sold the field to Nitin and Prakash.
17 07/02/2005 Nitin and Prakash joined as parties
18 RCS 104/2004 was withdrawn in the year 2009 as Court executed the sale deed in favour of Rajendra.
8. Perusal of the report dated 14-5-2010 lodged by Mr. Nitin Kadam reveals that he purchased agriculture field Survey 274/03 from Mrs. Chhaya Ghurde vide registered sale deed dated 4-6-2004. The next statement in the report is that Mrs. Savita Dode was the owner of the said agriculture field having inherited the same from her mother and Mrs. Savita Dode executed power of attorney for consideration in favour of Mr. Yogiraj Thete. The attorney executed sale deed da
