Advocates:
['BODKHE BHAGINATH TRIMBAK', 'COPY SERVED ON P P', '', 'SALUNKE MAYUR V']

1

W.Ps. 854 n 921 of 2021.odt

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 854 OF 2022

RAMRAO S/O EKNATHRAO PAWAR

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

...

Mr. Shikrashna B. Solanke, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. G. O. Wattamwar, A.P.P. for Respondent/State.

Mr. Mayur V. Salunke, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

...

AND

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 921 OF 2022

SHAHAJI S/O VENKATRAO BAVANE AND ANOTHER

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

...

Mr. Bhaginath Trimbak Bodkhe, Advocate for Petitioners.

Mr. G. O. Wattamwar, A.P.P. for Respondent/State.

Mr. Mayur V. Salunke, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

…

CORAM

: SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.

RESERVED ON

: 23^rd September, 2022.

PRONOUNCED ON : 26^th September, 2022.

O R D E R :

.

Heard finally with consent of both the sides at admission

stage.

2

W.Ps. 854 n 921 of 2021.odt

2

The petitioners by their respective petition, have

challenged the legality and validity of the order of issue process

passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur in R.C.C.

No.22 of 2017 against the petitioners and confirmed by the learned

Sessions Judge, Latur in Criminal Revision Application Nos.17 and 19

of 2020.

SUBMISSIONS OF MR. S. B. SOLANKE, COUNSEL FOR THE

PETITIONER IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.854 OF 2022 AND

MR. B. T. BODKHE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS

IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.921 OF 2022

:

3

It is submitted by the learned counsels for the respective

petitioner that the order of issue process passed by the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Latur against the respective petitioner is bad in

law. There was no sufficient material to take cognizance against the

respective petitioner. There was a civil transaction between the

husband of respondent No.2 / original complainant and the respective

petitioner. Respondent No.2 / original complainant has given colour of

a criminal case and filed private complaint against the respective

petitioner by suppressing certain material facts and obtained the order

of issue process. The flat / property in dispute is situated at Pune. As

3

W.Ps. 854 n 921 of 2021.odt

such, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur has no jurisdiction to

entertain the private complaint filed by respondent No.2.

4

The husband of respondent No.2 during his lifetime had

resigned from the membership of the housing society and he was no

more member of the said housing society. The learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Latur has overlooked the fact that the flat in question is in

occupation and possession of petitioner Ramrao Pawar and he is

paying the municipal taxes. The order passed by the learned Deputy

Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune to consider original

complainant / respondent No.2 as a deemed member of the society,

has been set aside by the learned Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-

operative Societies, Pune Division, Pune vide order dated 3^rd

September, 2016. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur has

not considered all these aspects and dispute between the parties in

the nature of civil proceedings and erroneously passed the order of

issue process. The order of issue process was challenged before the

Sessions Judge, Latur, but the learned Sessions Judge, Latur was

also pleased to dismiss the revision and upheld the order of issue

process passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur. The

learned Sessions Judge, Latur has also not considered various issues

raised by the respective petitioner in the revision. The order passed

4

W.Ps. 854 n 921 of 2021.odt

by the learned Sessions Judge in the criminal revision application is

also bad in law and liable to be quashed and set aside. The learned

counsels for the respective petitioner took me through the copy of

entire complaint filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioners and

submitted that no prima-facie case was made out by respondent No.2

for issuing process