AJAY Vs. SEEMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel Mr. R. Chhabra for the applicant and learned Counsel Mr. N.S. Agrawal for non-applicant No. 1. The applicant feels aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 807/2009 on 16-6-2011. To narrate the facts in brief, it may be stated here that non-applicant No. 1 Smt. Seema Gedam had filed a police complaint against Arun Indurkar, Nepal Indurkar and Smt. Raiwanti Indurkar for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code. The applicant Mr. Ajay Dwarkadas Baheti was Advocate representing the above named three accused in the said case. It was tried as Regular Criminal Case No. 235/99 (State of Maharashtra vs. Arun and two others). The said case was finally decided on 22nd June, 2007. All the accused were acquitted of the charges framed against them.

(2.) Non-Applicant No. 1-Smt. Seema Gedam, who was the original complainant in the said case, felt aggrieved by the said judgment and felt aggrieved by certain questions put to her in the cross-examination by the applicant on behalf of the said three accused. She, therefore, filed a private complaint against the applicant Advocate Mr. Ajay Baheti and the said three accused namely Shri Arun Indurkar, Nepal Indurkar and Smt. Raiwanti Indurkar. The said criminal case was registered as Regular Criminal Complaint Case No. 2230/2007 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 6, Nagpur. After recording of statement of the applicant on oath and statements of witnesses, a process of summons was issued on 24.8.2007 against the applicant and other three accused to appear before the Court to answer the charge for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Before I proceed further, it is necessary to be stated here the statements of witnesses so recorded are labelled by the Magistrate as 'evidence before charge'.

(3.) At this stage, since the copies of record of trial Court did not appear to be true copies in all respects, the Registrar (Judicial) was directed to call original record and proceedings from the trial Court.