Specific averments of criminal act and intent against accused required for issuance of process in private complaints; mere negligence in document verification or vague collusion claims insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

M. M. NERLIKAR, J .

Heard.

2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 07/08/2025, wherein the Criminal Revision filed by the Respondent herein was allowed and the order of issuance of process passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Corporation Court No.2, Nagpur, dated 30/05/2024 passed below Exh.13 in RCC 620/2022 was set aside. Against this impugned order, the present petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in collusion with the Aditya Angha Multi-State Credit Cooperative Society (“Society”), one Vijay Dangre had mortgaged the property of the petitioner and obtained the loan of Rs. 4.20 crores. Not only the property of the petitioner, but other several properties were mortgaged by the said Vijay Dangre to the Society to obtain a loan of Rs. 4.20 crores. Vijay Dangre was not authorized to mortgage the property of the petitioner. The complaint was filed on the basis of the allegation that Vijay Dangre did not have power of attorney to mortgage the property. Waman Ambekar who is the original owner never created third party interest. It is alleged that based on bogus power of attorney, Vijay Dangre is dealing with the disputed property and also threatening the petitioner. Based on these allegations, the complaint was filed. However, the complaint was amended at a later point of time and the present respondents were arrayed as accused. So far as the present respondents are concerned, they are the officials of the Society with whom the properties are mortgage, the counsel further submits that they ought to have verified the property which is mortgaged with them before sanctioning loan which they failed to do so and therefore in collusion with Vijay Dangre, the properties have been mortgaged and therefore officials/present respondents are also involved in the alleged crime. He submits that when a notice was issued to the Society, it was replied that Mr. Vijay Dangre and his family are the members of the Society and he had availed credit facility from the Society. It is further observed in the reply filed by the Society that by way of mortgage deed dated 01/04/2021 only 2548.32 square meters of land was mortgaged as an additional mortgage apart from various other properties to secure the loan from the Society, therefore it is denied that complete property is under mortgage. He submits that this fact itself shows that in collusion with Vijay Dangre, the Society officials have acted as it has been admitted that Vijay Dangre is the member of the Society and he had availed credit facility from the Society. He submits that all these factors ought to have been considered by the Revisional Court, therefore the Revisional Court has committed gross error in setting aside the order of issue of process, he therefore submits that the order passed by the Magistrate was after application of mind. However, considering above background he submits that impugned order is bad in law and requires to be quashed and set aside.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that there are no averments in the complaint against respondents. The Society had facilitated loan on mortgage of the property. Whatever dispute is between the petitioner and Vijay Dangre, has nothing to do with the Society and their officials. He further submits that after verifying the documents, the loan was disbursed and no fault can be attributed to the Society officials. Before initiation of any criminal proceedings against the Society officials, it is necessary to see the intention and in the entire complaint, neither ther