STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Revision Petition No.RP/23/51 (Arising against the order dated 25/01/2023 passed by the D.F. Sangli in EA/21/43)

1.Mr.Dilip Annaso Landge R/at-Budhwar Peth, Janwade Galli Miraj

2.Mr.Ashok Appaso Adure R/at-Budhwar Peth, Janwade Galli Miraj

3.Mr.Shivputra Shankar Kudche R/at Nadiwes, Mali Galli ...... Revision Petitioners/ In front of Garden Tailors, Miraj org.OP nos.4, 5 & 6 Versus

1.Sandeep Shrimant Ghuli

2.Sumit Shrimant Ghuli

3.Kum.Rekha Shrimant Ghuli All R/at-Old Dhwali Road ………Respondents/org.complainants Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Miraj Taluka Miraj, District Sangli BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member PRESENT: Adv Padmanabh D. Pise a/w. Adv Sejal A. Hariyan i/b.

P.Padmanabh & Associates for the revision petitioners.

Adv Ajay Pawar for respondents.

FINAL ORDER (Dt.27/05/2025)

Per Hon’ble Vijay C.Premchandani – Member

1. The present revision petition is filed by the revision petitioners challenging the order dated 25/01/2023 passed by the Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sangli in Execution Application no.EA/21/43, thereby rejecting the petitioners’ application.

The factual matrix of the case :-

2. The respondents/org. complainants had filed the consumer complaint no.43 of

2012 for refund of money from Sainath Nagari Pathsanstha. After hearing both the parties as on 26/02/2016, the consumer complaint was partly allowed in favour of the complainants. In the year 2016, the respondents/org. complainants have filed Execution Application no.EA/16/129 u/sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As on 25/11/2020, in the said Execution Application no.EA/16/129 at Exhibit-1, the Ld.District Consumer Commission passed an order and dismissed the complaint u/sec.256 of Cr.P.C. and the accused was acquitted. Bail Bond of the accused was cancelled and the said proceedings were closed. In the year 2021, the respondents/org. complainants again preferred fresh Execution Application no.EA/21/43 u/sec.72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Ld.District Consumer Commission, Sangli has issued the process against the accused. The accused appeared and moved an application for dismissal of the complaint as already in the same offence the accused was acquitted u/sec.256 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted or acquitted and cannot to be tried for the same offence.

3. After hearing both the parties, the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Sangli has rejected the application as on 25/01/2023. The said impugned order has been challenged in the present revision petition on the following grounds:-

GROUNDS FOR REVISION PETITION :-

4. The petitioners have submitted that the said order is passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission without considering section 300 of Cr.P.C. wherein it is quoted that person once acquitted cannot be tried against the same offence. It is further contended that the Ld.District Consumer Commission failed to consider that the respondents/org. complainants did not file any appeal, revision or any petition u/sec.482 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order passed in the earlier execution application. There is no provision in the Code empowering a Magistrate to review or recall the order of dismissal of complaint and acquittal of accused passed u/sec. 256 of Cr.P.C. The Ld.District Consumer Commission erred in holding that the offence is continuous one, and therefore, it cannot be said that the second complaint is maintainable for the same cause of action. The present revision petitioners have prayed that the order dated 25/01/2023 passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Sangli below application dated 13/06/2022 in Execution Application no.EA/21/43 may be set aside and allow the prayer made in the application in the interest of justice.

5. After admission of revision petition, the notices were issued to the respondents i.e. original complainants. The counsel for the respondents appeared. Perused the applicatio