YAMUNABAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Trimbak Sadashiv Lolge, resident of Putamba, died on 22nd April, 1973. He was holding 80 shares of Great Eastern Shipping Company and 25 shares of Changdeo Sugar Mills Limited, Bombay. An application under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was moved by Yamunabai Trimbak Lolge, wife of deceased Trimbak, in the Court of Civil Judge (J. D.) at Kopargaon. In this application, Vasant, Ramesh, Dattatraya and Sulochana, three sons and a daughter of deceased Trimbak, were shown to be other heirs. A public notice was issued in daily "prabhat" published from Pune on 12th May, 1990 calling objections and since no objections were received, application came to be allowed by the learned Judge on 20th June, 1990. Gangadhar Trimbak Lolge claiming to be step-son of Yamunabai filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Kopargaon on 20th February, 1992 alleging that knowing fully well that the complainant Gangadhar is also one of the heirs of Trimbak, he was not shown to be the heir and a public notice was published in daily "prabhat" in Pune District, so that the complainant should not come to know of the pending proceedings, an order was sought by collusion between Yamunabai and other heirs shown in the application excluding complainant Gangadhar. The learned Judicial Magistrate was pleased to issue process for the offence under section 464, 462, 427 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code vide his order dated 27th March, 1992. This Criminal Application prays for quashing the said process.

(2.) ACCUSED-APPLICANTS Vasant, Ramesh, Dattatraya and Sulochana were not the applicants for the succession certificate. Succession Certificate is granted only in the name of Yamunabai. There is nothing averred in the complaint or in the evidence recorded by the learned Magistrate which goes to show that accused-applicant Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 had played any positive role in the alleged proceedings except giving consent to the application filed by their mother. It is difficult to understand why the learned Magistrate has issued process against these accused persons.

(3.) THE facts alleged in the complaint are that the name of the complainant Gangadhar was not shown as one of the heirs. Notice was published in daily " Prabhat" which is published from Pune and it was with the intention that the complainant should not come to know of the pendency of this application and the third allegation is that by collusion the succession certificate was obtained and the share amount was received by the accused persons. Succession certificate is admittedly in the name of Yamunabai and none of the other accused have received the amount since shares were transferred in the name of Yamunabai. Since the learned Judicial Magistrate was pleased to issue process under sections 464, 462, 427 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, it will have to be seen whether there were grounds to proceed against any of the accused persons under the aforesaid sections of Indian Penal Code.