1

apl187.2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL)

NO.

187/2016

1.

Sau. Ranjana W/o Prakash Jaiswal,

aged about 49 Yrs., Occ. Business,

R/o In front of Ganapati Temple,

Lasur Naka, Gangapur, Tq. Gangapur,

Dist. Aurangabad.

2.

Sau. Sharada W/o Ashok Jaiswal,

aged about 45 Yrs., Occ. Business,

R/o Nagarkhana Galli, Near Supari

Hanuman Temple, Kulmandi Chowk,

Aurangabad, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad.

3.

Pratima D/o Shankarlal Jaiswal,

aged about 43 Yrs., Occ. Business,

R/o Ward No.5, Shelu Bazar Road,

Malegaon, Dist. Washim.

4.

Sau. Geeta Nandlal Jaiswal,

aged about 40 Yrs., Occ. Business,

R/o Ward No.2, Main Road

Malegaon, Dist. Washim.

...

Applicants

- Versus -

1.

State of Maharashtra,

through Collector, Washim.

2.

State of Maharashtra,

through Police Station Officer,

Police Station Malegaon,

Tq. Malegaon, Dist. Washim.

2

apl187.2016

3.

Ramkishor S/o Shankarlal Jaiswal,

aged about 47 Yrs., Occ. Business,

R/o Malegaon, Tq. Malegaon,

Dist. Washim.

... Non-applicants.

-----------------

Mr. A. S. Deshpande, Advocate for the applicants.

Mr. S.M. Ghodeswar, A.P.P. for Non-applicants Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. R.S. Kurekar, Advocate for Non-applicant No.3.

Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, Amicus Curiae.

----------------

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND

M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ.

DATE : 12.12.2022

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

Not on board toady. Taken on board. Heard finally by

consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2.

This application questions the legality and correctness or

otherwise of the order dated 4.1.2016 passed by the Court of

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malegaon, Dist. Washim thereby

3

apl187.2016

directing the concerned police station to investigate the

cognizable offences disclosed by the application filed under

Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short

“Cr.P.C.”). This application also challenges the judgment and

order passed in Criminal Revision No.32/2014, which was filed

by non-applicant No.3 against the order passed by the learned

Magistrate directing application of non-applicant No.3 to be put

up for verification on the next date.

3.

The applicants and non-applicant No.3 are close relatives

but several disputes, according to the applicants, are going on

between them. The applicants contend that as an offshoot of

those disputes and with some oblique motive, non-applicant No.3

filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. making

several allegations against the applicants contending that offences

punishable under Sections 77, 81, 82 and 83 of the Maharashtra

Prohibition Act were committed by the applicants. The

applicants say that these allegations basically pertain to the alleged

4

apl187.2016

violation of the conditions of liquor licence run by the applicants

and these allegations have been made by non-applicant No.3 with

a view to see that their liquor licence is cancelled by the

authorities.

4.

Initially, learned Magistrate had passed an order to the effect

“put up for verification” on the application filed by non-applicant

No.3 under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. It was challenged by

non-applicant No.3 by filing a criminal revision and

non-applicant No.3 succeeded in his challenge when the Court of

Additional Sessions Judge, Washim allowed the criminal revision

application and remanded the matter back to the Court of

concerned Judicial Magistrate with a direction to pass appropriate

and speaking order on the application of the complainant.

Thereafter a fresh order was passed upon fresh consideration,

which is the order dated 4.1.2016 impugned herein.

5.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that learned

Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have interfered in the

5

apl187.2016

matter as the allegations made in the application were vague and

did not disclose commission of any cognizable offen