SUNIL BAPURAO GAWALWAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocates for the parties. Taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

(2.) The petitioners/accused persons against whom an order of issuance of process is passed are before this Court. Against the petitioner No. 1 the process is issued for the offence punishable under Sec. 494 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.") and against petitioner Nos. 2 to 15 the process is issued for the offence punishable under Sec. 109 of the I.P.C. by order dtd. 15/9/2012 in R.C.C. No. 109/2011 by the learned J.M.F.C., Kandhar. There is long history before passing of this order. Initially, respondent No. 2-wife filed complaint in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Kandhar against the petitioners and one Pushpa @ Pinki w/o Sunil Gawalwad for the offence punishable under Sec. 494 of the I.P.C. Accused No. 2 - Pushpa who is not before this Court and it is alleged that there is no such girl by name Pushpa Sunil Gawalwad. For the accused Nos. 3 to 16 process is issued for the offence punishable under Sec. 109 of the I.P.C. The learned Magistrate by order dtd. 27/7/2011 had issued process. However, the said order came to be challenged by filing revision bearing Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2011 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar on various grounds including that no case is made out to issue process. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar by judgment and order dtd. 17/10/2011 was pleased to partly allow the revision application holding that the learned Magistrate has not taken sufficient care before passing the order. The learned Magistrate was directed to pass appropriate legal order by following provisions of law. It was on the ground that only the complainant was examined by the learned Magistrate. The persons who have directly witnessed the offence were not examined.

(3.) The order of remand was challenged by the petitioners by filing Criminal Writ Petition No. 1008/2011 in this Court. This Court has considered only the aspect of procedure followed by the learned Magistrate while issuing process. This Court found that no error is committed by the learned Sessions Judge while remanding the matter and disposed off the criminal writ petition by its order dtd. 8/1/2013.