RAIBHAN BHIMAJI PANSARE Vs. MACHINDRA CHANDRABHAN PANSARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard submissions advanced at the bar.

(2.) Present petition questions the order dated 1.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner in Criminal Revision Application No.294/2000 (old No.67/1998) as also Criminal Revision No.296/2000 (old 71/1998) whereby both the revision applications were dismissed and record and proceedings of the lower Court was transmitted back. According to the petitioner/original accused no.5 in pending Criminal Case No. 259/1986 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Sangamner, District Ahmednagar, the complainant had prosecuted the accused upon various accusations punishable under sections 166, 192, 199, 200, 466, 470 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that evidence before charge was recorded by the learned trial Magistrate and charge was also framed. The accusations were in respect of alleged collusion between the petitioner and local Revenue Officials for effecting false pencil entry in revenue record which remained operative for years. It appears that learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangamner had ordered inquiry under section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code and had received the police report on or about 24.7.1987. Earlier learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangamner by order dated 7.11.1987 was pleased to dismiss the complaint, but dismissal of the complaint was challenged in Criminal Revision Petition No.372/1989 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Ahmednagar who thought prosecution necessary was pleased to allow the revision petition by order dated 14.2.1993 and consequently, the process came to be issued against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 166, 192, 199, 466 r/w 109 of Indian Penal Code. It is under these circumstances, the complaint proceedings made progress and evidence before charge was also recorded in which trial Magistrate heard evidence of two witnesses on behalf of the complainant. On the basis of evidence led; charge was framed on 20.4.1998 which according to learned advocate for the petitioner is incorrect as it was not based on sound basis against the petitioner. Although, multiple number of accused were prosecuted, it is only the petitioner who preferred the present petition, other coaccused have not filed petition to challenge charge framed in the case.

(3.) Learned advocate for the petitioner contended criticizing that impugned order is contrary to law on the ground that no charges could have been framed on the basis of evidence led. It is further submitted by learned Advocate for the Petitioner that, the dispute is between the members of the joint Hindu Family in respect of property belonging to joint Hindu Family. Name of the petitioner was mutated in possessor column on the basis of crop inspection by Talathi by taking pencil entry which during later period was confirmed by the Tahsildar. Thus, according to the petitioner, no offence has been committed by the petitioner as alleged in the complaint and that there was in fact civil dispute between the members of the Joint Hindu Family. It is under these circumstances, petitioner prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order.