1 of 13 5.WP.635.2022.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.635 OF 2022

Prakash Vasant Kuray, Age 65 years,

Occ.Retired, R/o.Chandrama,

Ground Floor, 21, Kala Nagar CHS,

Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051.

Petitioner

versus

1. The State of Maharashtra.

2. Ishwar Gulab Naik, Adult,

R/o.Chandrama, 2^nd Floor,

Kala Nagar CHS, Bandra East,

Mumbai-400 051.

Respondents

Mr.Shekhar Ingawale with Mr.Prashant Relekar i/by Mr.Parth P. Shah,

Advocates for petitioner.

Mr.A.D.Kamkhedkar, APP, for respondent no.1 State.

Mr.Karansingh Rajput, Advocate for respondent no.2.

CORAM

:

PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DATE

:

19^th July 2022

PC :

1.

The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 20^th December 2021

passed by Sessions Court setting aside the order dated 14^th October

2019 issuing process and remitting the matter back to the stage of

verification u/s.200 of Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C’).

2.

The petitioner is the original complainant in complaint bearing

No.231/SW/2014. The complaint was filed seeking investigation

u/s.156(3) of Cr.P.C u/s420, 417, 467 of Indian Penal Code. Vide

MANISH

SURESH

THATTE

Digitally signed by

MANISH SURESH

THATTE

Date: 2022.10.03

12:11:08 +0530

2 of 13 5.WP.635.2022.doc

order dated 27^th October 2014 learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 32^nd

Court, Bandra, Mumbai directed inquiry u/s.202 of Cr.P.C. It was

observed that there is no wide scope for investigation u/s.156(3) of

CrP.C and that the inquiry into the allegations u/s.202 would be

sufficient. It was directed that complaint be sent to Kherwadi Police

Station for report u/s.202 of Cr.P.C.

3.

Pursuant to the order dated 27^th October 2014, negative report

u/s.202 of Cr.P.C was filed by police. Learned Magistrate was pleased

to reject the complaint vide order dated 20^th January 2016 on the

ground that police filed negative report. No case is made out against

accused. Prayer for fresh investigation was rejected. Case was

disposed off.

4.

The petitioner-complainant challenged the order dated 20^th

January 2016 by preferring Criminal Revision Application No.386 of

2016 before Sessions Court, Greater Bombay. Learned Sessions

Judge vide order dated 21^st April 2016 allowed the revision

application. The order dated 20^th January 2016 was set aside and

the matter was remanded back to Trial Court for fresh consideration

Learned Sessions Judge had observed that learned Magistrate has not

considered the report in its proper perspective. He has not given any

reason for accepting the report of police u/s.202 of CrP.C. Hence the

matter is remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.

5.

Respondent no.2 challenged the order dated 21^st April 2016

before High Court by preferring Writ Petition No.1897 of 2016. This

Court set aside the order dated 21^st April 2016 and remanded the

matter back to Sessions Court to consider the matter afresh and give

3 of 13 5.WP.635.2022.doc

respondent no.2 an opportunity to put his case. Criminal Revision

Application No.383 of 2016 was again heard and by order dated 17^th

September 2016 the revisional Court allowed the said revision

application by setting aside order dated 20^th January 2016 in

C.C.No.231/SW/2014 and remanding the matter back to Trial Court

for fresh consideration with reference to allegations in the complaint

and the report submitted by police u/s.202 of Cr.P.C.

6.

Aggrieved by order dated 17^th September 2016 passed by

Sessions Court, the respondent no.2 again approached this Court by

preferring Writ Petition No.4043 of 2016. Although interim relief

was granted earlier, subsequently it was not extended and stood

vacated.

7.

The proceedings were again heard by learned Magistrate. Vide

order dated 11^th December 2018 the Court directed the police to

continue further in