SHANTILAL SHANKAR NIKAM Vs. POPATRAO SHRAVAN NIKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition challenging the issue of process in Criminal Case No.9 of 1988 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, First class, Malegaon, District Nashik. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The complainant-respondent No.1 has been duly served, but he has remained unrepresented.

(2.) THE first respondent-complainant filed a private complaint in the Court below against the petitioners, respondent No.3 and one more accused. After recording the verification statement of the complainant, the learned Magistrate issued process under Sections 420, 406 and 468 I.P.C. against accused Nos.1,3 and 4. However, he dismissed the complaint against accused No.2. After coming to know of the process issued by the learned Magistrate, accused Nos.1 and 4 have come up with this petition challenging the issue of process.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State I find that the issue of process cannot be sustained. In the first instance, it is seen that the complaint is filed one year after the date of the alleged offence. The date of the offence is 28/1/1987 and the complaint came to be filed on 27/1/1988. In a criminal case lodging of a prompt FIR is an important thing. Delay in lodging the F.I.R. may be due to many reasons. When we are concerned with particular offence delay in lodging FIR assumes importance. The learned Magistrate has not applied his mind to the question of delay of one year in lodging the complaint.