INDIRABAI MAHADEV INGLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this criminal application, filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.PC"), the applicants have questioned the correctness of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akot dtd. 8/6/2012 and also the order of issuance of process passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Telhara dtd. 15/4/2010. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Telhara, by order dtd. 15/4/2010, issued process against the applicants for the offences punishable under Ss. 406, 409, 419, 420, 422, 468, 471 and 477(A) read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"). This order of issuance of process was challenged by filing the revision application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akot by the applicants. The revision application came to be dismissed.

(2.) The facts relevant for the decision of this criminal application may be stated as under :

(3.) The non-applicant No.2/complainant made a demand of the money from the applicants. Since the amount was not paid, he issued a notice under Sec. 180 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 on 27/3/2002 and made a demand of the money. On failure of the applicants to pay the money, the nonapplicant No.2/complainant filed a civil suit for recovery of the money on 6/1/2003 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Telhara bearing Regular Civil Suit No.05/2003. In the written statement filed by the applicants and others in the said suit, the claim of the non-applicant No.2/complainant was opposed. They denied their liability. They denied the nature of transaction. The applicant No.23 denied the Resolution dtd. 18/6/2001. The receipts, payment etc. was also denied. It is stated that after recording the evidence in the civil suit, the non-applicant No.2/complainant came to know on the basis of the record that the payment to the tune of Rs.74,450.00 was shown to have been made to the complainant on 23/6/2001. In fact, he had not received the payment. Further perusal of the record revealed that under the Voucher No.283, the payment of Rs.64,000.00 was made to one Abdul Salam Abdul Kadar and not to the complainant. On these averments, the non-applicant No.2/complainant filed the complaint and alleged that the forged and fabricated documents were created to deny the liability of the payment. It was with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the non-applicant No.2/complainant.