1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION

NO.

110

OF 20

22

1.

Chitra wd/o Shriram Ghongade, aged 62

years, Occ. Household,

2.

Amol s/o Shriram Ghongade, aged

about 34 years, occ. : Agriculturist,

Both R/o At Post Alangaon, Tq. Bhatkuli,

Dist. Amravati.

3.

Prashant s/o Shriram Ghongade, aged

about 37 years, occ : Service, R/o

Navjivan Colony, Behind Rangoli Lawn,

Kathora Road, Amravati, Tq. & Dist.

Amravati.

4.

Sarika w/o Rupesh Junghare, Aged 32

years, Occ.:Household, R/o Ward No.5,

Pusada, Tq.& Dist. Amravati.

... PETITIONERS

VERSUS

1.

State of Maharashtra, through Police

Station Officer, Bhatkuli, Tq.

Bhatkuli, Dist. Amravati.

2.

Pravin s/o Vasantrao Ghongade,

Aged about 34 years, Occ. :

Agriculturist.

3.

Vasantrao s/o Wamanrao Ghongade,

aged about 62 years, Occ. :

Agriculturist,

2

Both R/o At Post Alangaon, Tq.

Bhatkuli, Dist. Amravati, Pin – 444

801

… RESPONDENTS

_____________________________________________________________

Shri P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri I.J. Damle, A.P.P. for the respondent no.1.

Shri Ram Karode, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

______________________________________________________________

CORAM

: VINAY JOSHI, J.

CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON

: 06.09.2022.

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 12.09.2022.

JUDGMENT :

RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

2.

The challenge in this petition is to the order of issuance of

process. The petitioner nos. 1 to 4 are accused nos. 1 to 4 of private

complaint bearing No.676 of 2019, filed by respondent nos.2 and 3.

The learned Magistrate by taking cognizance of the complaint directed

to initiate an inquiry in terms of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (the Code). After assessing the entire material, the

Magistrate has issued process in terms of Section 204 of the Code vide

order dated 26.09.2019. The process was issued against all petitioners

for the offence punishable under Sections 193, 199, 200, 420, 468 and

3

471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved,

the petitioners have preferred the Criminal Revision No.121 of 2019 in

which the order of issuance of process was upheld except process under

Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners have impugned

herein both orders by invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court with

an urge to dismiss the complaint by setting aside both the impugned

orders.

3.

The litigation backs a checkered history. The respondent

nos. 2 and 3 (Complainants) have filed private complaint alleging that

the petitioners (accused) have filed a false affidavit before the Land

Acquisition Officer thereby stating that no litigation was pending in

between the parties. It was a case that a certain piece of land was in the

name of father of accused namely Shriramji Ghongade, which came to

be acquired. The Award was passed by the competent authority in the

name of Shriramji, who died in the year 2017. The accused in the

capacity of legal representatives of Shriramji, applied to the Land

Acquisition Authority for receipt of compensation. In said proceedings,

they have filed an affidavit stating that no civil or criminal litigation

relating to acquired land, was pending in the Courts of law.

4.

It is the complainants case that at the time of filing said

4

affidavit dated 30.04.2019, Regular Civil Appeal No.59 of 2019 was

pending in between the parties and thus, by suppressing the said fact,

the accused have filed a false and misleading affidavit, therefore,

committed the offence. The Police have conducted an inquiry stating

that the affidavite was in usual standard format. The learned

Magistrate prima facie found that the material is sufficient to issue a

process and accordingly, passed the impugned order. The Revisional

Court held that process