MAHENDRA SHANKARRAO GODBOLE Vs. PRABHAKAR HARIRAM GULHANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under section 482 of Code of criminal Procedure, challenging the order dated 13-9-2000 passed by the 5th additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision Application No. 171 /2000, dismissing the revision filed by the applicant against the order dated 16-12- 1999 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 242/99 to the extent of issuance of process against the present applicant. The applicant is accused No. 4 in Criminal Complaint case No. 242/99 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate filed by the respondent No. 1 herein.

(2.) THE applicant is an accused No. 4 in Criminal Case No. 242/99 filed by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 filed Criminal Complaint Case No. 242/ 99 dated 26-7-1999 against present applicant and three others for the commission of offences punishable under sections 499, 500, 501 read with 34 of indian Penal Code. After verification of complaint, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 16-12-1999 issued process against a/i four accused under sections 500, 501 read with 34 of I. P. C. returnable on 18-1-2000. This order was challenged by the applicant by filing Criminal Revision Application no. 171 /2000, which was made over to 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. After hearing the parties, the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, by his judgment and order dated 13-9-2000 dismissed the revision. The present application challenges both the orders passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate and the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.

(3.) AT the outset, Mr. Morande, the learned Counsel for the applicant states that both the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate are patently illegal and without jurisdiction in as much as, no offence under section 500 or 501 read with 34 of I. P. C. is made out against the applicant. He further submits that there are absolutely no averments, which justified issuance of process for the offences alleged against applicant. According to Mr. Morande, both the lower Courts have not applied their mind ' and have issued process against the present applicant without considering the fact that there is absolutely no whisper in the complaint as to in what manner the applicant has defamed respondent No. 1. Mr. Gulhane respondent No. 1, who appeared in person submits that the allegations against him are found in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the complaint. According to Mr. Gulhane, this complaint has been filed on the basis of statements made in criminal Complaint Case No. 368/98, in which certain statements have been made against the applicant. A copy of Criminal Complaint Case No. 368/98 has been placed on record.