SAKHARAM DIGAMBAR MAHAJAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S.M.Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner is the original complainant. He filed a complaint against 11 persons i.e. the respondent nos. 2 to 12 herein, alleging the commission of offences punishable under sections 177 and 182 of the Indian Penal Code. The substance of the allegations was that, the respondent no.1 had given false information to the Vice Chancellor of Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University, Nanded. The Magistrate, upon examining the petitioner as contemplated under section 200 of the Code, formed an opinion that there was a prima facie case for proceeding against the respondents and by his order dated 25.6.2002 directed issuance of process against respondent nos. 2 to 12 (the accused herein) in respect of the aforesaid offences. After the service of summons, some of the accused made an application for rejection of the complaint contending that the cognizance of the alleged offence could not have been taken without a complaint from the Public Servant concerned i.e. the Vice Chancellor of Marathwada University. On this application, by an order dated 12.3.2004, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nanded re called the process issued against the accused persons i.e. the respondent nos. 2 to 12 herein. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Magistrate, the petitioner moved the Court of Sessions by filing an application for revision. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the revision dismissed the same by an order dated 16.4.2007.

(3.) IT is clear that the cognizance of the alleged offences could have been taken by the Magistrate in view of the bar created by clause (a) of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complaint had not been made by the Vice Chancellor of the said University, or an officer to whom the Vice Chancellor was administratively subordinate. As a matter of fact, no dispute in that regard is raised before me and it is conceded that cognizance of the alleged offences could not have been taken on the complaint filed by the petitioner.