HARIRAM VENSIMAL BHARWANI Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first proceeding is filed against the judgment and order of Criminal Revision Application No.108/2003 and this revision was filed by the present respondent No.2 against the order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon in S.C.C. No.207/1997. The second proceeding is filed against the judgment and order of Criminal Revision Application No.111/2003 and this revision was filed by the present respondent No.2 against the order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon in S.C.C. No.211/1997. The third proceeding is filed against the judgment and order of Criminal Revision Application No.110/2003 and this revision was filed by the present respondent No.2 against the order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon in S.C.C. No.210/ 1997. The fourth proceeding is filed against the judgment and order of Criminal Revision Application No.113/2003 and this revision was filed by the present respondent No.2 against the order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon in S.C.C. No.213/ 1997 and the last proceeding against the judgment and order of Criminal Revision Application No.112/2003 and this revision was filed by the present respondent No.2 against the order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon in S.C.C. No.212/ 1997. All the cases were filed by respondent No.2 for offences punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. These private complaints were dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, under section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 and the order of dismissal was challenged in the Sessions Court by filing aforesaid criminal revision applications. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the orders of dismissal and has restored the matters. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is also heard. Though respondent No.2, original complainant, was served she did not appear.

(2.) The orders made, copy of which is on the record, shows that initially process was issued in private complaint for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As there was no process issued for offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, revision petitions were filed by the original complainant and those revision applications were allowed.

(3.) The stage of the matter was evidence before charge. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that such order is possible in law and there is nothing wrong in the order of acquittal made by the learned Judicial Magistrate. It is surprising that all the criminal revision applications were decided on 17-12-2003, the matters were restored accordingly but the present proceedings came to be filed on 10-10-2012. This Court (presided over by other Hon'ble Judge) gave interim relief and stay was given to the decision of the Sessions Court by order dated 16-10-2012. It appears that there is service of notice of the proceeding on respondent No.2, original complainant but after 19-12-2012 nobody got circulation in the matters and the proceedings were lying in the Department. Only due to specific order given by this Court the matters were listed for admission purpose and they were heard.