DAGDU PATOLE ADVOCATE Vs. SHANTARAM GANPAT DORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition takes exception to the act of Judicial Magistrate, F. C. , ghodnadi who issued process against all the petitioners for offence punishable under provisions of Section 500 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal code.

(2.) THE subject matter of the said complaint is an application which was signed by petitioner Nos. 2 to 11, dated 12. 1. 2000. The said application was addressed to Superintendent of Police, Pune Rural, District Pune. A complaint was made out that the Investigating Officer, who was doing the investigation in respect of death of one Tarabai Balu Vadghule was not investigating the said crime properly and was acting under the influence of respondent No. 1 Shantaram Ganpat Dorge, Advocate. The copies of the said application were sent to the Chief Minister, Maharashtra State, mumbai; Home Minister, Maharashtra State, Mumbai; Sabhapati Legislative Assembly, Maharashtra, Mumbai; Leader of Opposition Legislative council Maharashtra, Mumbai; Collector, Pune; Chemical Analyser, ganeshkhind, Pune; Inspector General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai; d. I. G. Police, Kolhapur, Range, Maharashtra State; CID Officer In charge (Crime) Detection and Investigation (Pune ). Being aggrieved by the imputations made in the said application, respondent No. 2 filed a Criminal complaint in the Court of J. M. F. C. , Ghodnadi, at Shirur, District Pune. The learned Magistrate issued process against the respondents (present petitioners) in respect of offence punishable under section 500 r/w 34 of the indian Penal Code.

(3.) SHRI Rahul Kate, Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that petitioner Nos. 1, 12 and 13 did not sign the said application and therefore, they cannot be said to be the persons who published such imputation, which-was likely to bring them under purview of provisions of section 499 of the I. P. C. He submitted that it being so, the process which has been issued by the learned Magistrate against them be quashed.