SUMITRABAI TRIMBAK KHANDERAY Vs. DNYANESHWAR SHALIKRAM BHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application, the applicants prayed for to quash and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Akot in Criminal Revision Application No.45/ 2006 and to restore the order passed by the learned JMFC Akot in Criminal Compliant Case No.21/2006 on 16.9.2006.

(2.) The facts in brief, are as under : The complainantShri Dnyaneshwar Shalikram More had lodged a complaint against one Shri Trimbak Tukaramji Khandaray and his wife Sumitrabai Khandaray. According to complainant in January 2004 Sanjay (late son of the accused persons) was in need of loan in the sum of Rs. 15,000/which was given by the complainant. Late Sanjay repaid the handloan by cheque dated 28.2.2004 which complainant had encashed. Sanjay is no more living since he died as the result of accident on 11.3.2004. Further, according to the complainant, a false suit was filed by the accused persons against the complainant taking unfair advantage of the entry of the cheque in the passbook of late Sanjay. Accused wanted to recover Rs. 15,000/by filing a suit bearing No. RCS No.127/ 2004 instituted in the Court of learned Civil Judge, JD, Akot. The complainant further stated that cock and bull story was made out by the accused. The accused had also produced and used in evidence document Exh.29 knowing that it is a forged and fabricated document but used it against the complainant in judicial proceedings. The learned Civil Judge, JD, Akot had dismissed that suit filed by the accused. According to the complainant the document( Exh.29 ) in that suit was a forged and fabricated document which accused had used in a judicial proceeding knowingly although it is a false and fabricated. Thus, it is alleged that the accused committed offence punishable under section 196 IPC. Using the said forged document, they also committed offence punishable under section 463, 464, 465, 466, 470 and 471 of the IPC. On this ground, the complaint was instituted for to take action and punish the accused for the aforesaid offences, It appears that verification of the complainant was also recorded in support of the complaint. The learned JMFC who perused the complaint and documents and also scrutinized the report of police under section 202 Cr. P. C. prima facie observed that it was a civil dispute between both the parties in the Court and prima facie there was no evidence on record to show that the accused committed the alleged offence. Thus, the learned JMFC Akot expressed his opinion that he did not find any ground for further proceeding and decided to dismiss the complaint by order dated 16.9.2006 in Criminal Compliant Case No. 21/ 2006.

(3.) Aggrieved by this order, the Revision Application No.45/ 2006 was filed by the complainant challenging the validity, legality and correctness of the same. The learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Akot found that document labeled as 'Akhiv Patrika' in the Regular Civil Suit No.127/2004 with a certificate issued by the Nazul Office, Akot, made it clear that the accused had produced disputed document Akhiv Patrika in the suit. According to the complainant, there was no such plot standing in his name and no such record in the Nazul Office to show that complainant owned plot No. 370 from Akot town. According to the complainant, the disputed document Akhiv Patrika had no basis on the Nazul record of Akot town and, therefore, the accused had prima facie produced a false document using it against the complainant in the suit. The complainant made a grievance that no opportunity was given to the complainant to lead evidence at all in respect of the accusation.