1

15- Cri. W. P. No. 1043-2021.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

15 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1043 OF 2021

RAJENDRA PETRUS LALZARE

..PETITIONER

VERSUS

NANABHAU S/O. LATE SAHEBRAO LALZARE

AND OTHERS

..RESPONDENTS

...

Petitioner present in person

APP for Respondent No.7: Ms. R. P. Gour

...

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.

DATE : 06.12.2021

PER COURT :-

This petition challenges the order dated 31.07.2019 in

Criminal Revision No. 90 of 2018.

2.

The petitioner herein had fled an application under

Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said

application was allowed and the concerned police station was

directed to investigate into the allegations made by the present

petitioner.

3.

Pursuant to the said order, crime No. 32 of 2016 for

the ofence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered.

2

15- Cri. W. P. No. 1043-2021.odt

4.

After investigation ‘C’ summery came to be fled. The

petitioner took exception to the said ‘C’ summery fled by the

investigating ofcer, by fling protest petition. The learned

Magistrate rejected the protest petition and accepted the ‘C’

summery. Against the said order, revision petition was fled

before the Session Court. The order of revisional Court

dismissing the revision is impugned in the present petition.

5.

I have heard the petitioner in person and learned A.P.P for

the respondent State.

6.

The petitioner submits that, under Section 397 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure it is mandatory for the revisional

Court to call record and proceedings of the case, whose order is

under challenge. It is submitted that record and proceedings

was not called. It is submitted that order impugned, thus needs

to be quashed and matter needs to be remanded back to

revisional Court. It is further submitted that, the investigation

was not properly carried out. It is submitted that the

investigating ofcer has not recorded the statements of

material witnesses and same was pointed out to the learned

3

15- Cri. W. P. No. 1043-2021.odt

Magistrate. It is submitted that, considering these facts and

circumstances the learned Magistrate ought not to have

accepted the ‘C’ summery and ought to have ordered further

investigation in the matter.

7.

On the other hand, the learned A.P.P for the respondent

State submits that, during the investigation, no encroachment

as alleged by the petitioner was found. It is submitted that, no

illegality was found in relation to grant of beneft to the

respondent No.1 under Gharkul scheme and even the

documents fled by the respondent No.1 were found to be

genuine. It is thus submitted that, thus ‘C’ summery was

submitted to the learned Magistrate. It is submitted that learned

Magistrate after examining papers of investigation, accepted

the ‘C’ summery. It is submitted that no interference is thus

called for in the order impugned in the writ jurisdiction.

8.

As regards the contention that record was not called by

the revisional Court, it appears that the present petitioner has

argued the matter at length before the revisional Court. If

according to the petitioner record was necessary, then he

should have made that request before arguing the matter. The

petitioner cannot now raise this grievance of non calling of

4

15- Cri. W. P. No. 1043-2021.odt

record by the revisional court after dismissal of revision petition.

I have perused the orders impugned. No perversity is pointed

out in the orders impugned warranting interference by this

Court in writ jurisdiction. In the result, petition is dismissed.

( N. R. BORKAR )

JUDGE

ysk