cwp348.22

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.348 OF 2022

Khamar Chause S/o Badar Chause Aljabri,

Age-42 years, Occu:Business,

R/o-Mandai Chauphala, Nanded,

Taluka and District-Nanded

...PETITIONER

VERSUS

1) The State of Maharashtra,

2) Gulam Mohsin s/o Abdul Hameed,

3) Abdul Motalib S/o Abdul Hameed,

4) Mohammad Ali Anwar S/o Mohammad Lutfullah,

5) Mohammad Nazir Ahmed S/o Mohammad Lutfullah,

6) Mohammad Javid Asadullah S/o Mohammad Lutfullah,

7) Mohammad Khaleed Ataullah S/o Mohammad Lutfullah,

8) Mohammad Sarfaraj Arshad S/o Mohammad Lutfullah,

9) Sunil S/o Dharamaraj More,

10) S.N. Damoshan,

11) C.B. Sawant

...RESPONDENTS

...

Mr.J.M. Murkute Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr.S.P. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 - State.

...

cwp348.22

2

CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

DATE : 9^th JUNE, 2022

ORDER :

1.

Present Criminal Writ Petition challenges the Judgment and

order passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.66 of 2021 by the

learned Sessions Judge, Nanded on 16^th November 2021 thereby

confirming the order passed below Exhibit-1 in O.M.C.A. No.2586

of 2020 by the learned J.M.F.C. 5^th Court Nanded dated 2^nd

September 2021, by which the learned Magistrate had refused

the relief of sending the matter for investigation under Section

156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned

Magistrate, after registering the complaint as Regular Criminal

Case, had directed that the case should be put up for recording

of statement under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

2.

Heard Mr.Murkute, learned Advocate appearing for the

applicant and Mr.Deshmukh, learned APP appearing for

respondent No. 1 – State. It is not even necessary to issue

notice to respondent Nos. 2 to 11.

cwp348.22

3

3.

The petitioner – original complainant claims that he is a

whistle blower and under the provisions of Right to Information

Act, he has sought certain information and came to know that so

far as certain properties are concerned, accused Nos.1 to 7 have

got mutation in their name on the basis of certain forged

documents and accused Nos.8 and 9, who are the Government

servants, had supported them. The complainant has stated that

accused Nos.1 to 7 had filed an application on 26^th February

2018 to the Land Records Office for getting those properties

mutated in their name on the basis of one Hibanama. That

application was supported by other documents and thereafter, as

per the procedure, the said Government Office had issued notice

but nobody objected and then the Mutation bearing No.17798

came to be allowed. However, the complainant has received

information that the said Hibanama, which is stated to have

been prepared on 12^th August 2013, is a false document and was

never brought to light for about five years. Thereafter the person

who allegedly executed the Hibanama, Haji Mohammad

Lutfullah, expired on 7^th September 2013 i.e. twenty six days

after the alleged Hibanama and therefore, if at all it would have

been a genuine document, it ought to have been brought to the

light immediately thereafter, yet the application was given in

cwp348.22

4

2018. The complainant describes as to how the document is

forged and then he also stated that by the said act, revenue

worth Rs.60,00,000/- of the Government has been duped.

Therefore, he has filed said application for sending it for

investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, contending that the accused persons have committed

offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471,

120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4.

After hearing the applicant i.e. present petitioner, the

learned Magistrate, taking into consideration that the application

can be entertaine