VITHAL VINAYAK BHUSKUTE Vs. NARHARI PANDURANG GANDALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment disposes of Criminal Writ Petitions Nos. 874 of 1993, 875 of 1993 and 636 of 1994.

(2.) NARHARI Pandurang Gundhale (hereinafter "the tenant") filed three complaints in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune, which came to be registered as Criminal Case Nos. 343 of 1992, 10 of 1993 and 128 of 1993 against Vithal Vinayak Bhuskute (hereinafter "the owner") and Dilip Vasant Gupte (hereinafter "the builder" ). In Criminal Case No. 343 of 1992, Acchyut Bhimaji Kulkarni was also arrayed as an accused. In the other two complaints he was not so arrayed. In Criminal Case No. 343 of 1992, the Magistrate ordered an enquiry under section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter "the Code" ). The police did not submit report for a long time. The Magistrate, after considering the material placed before him, issued process to the accused - the builder and the owner. In Criminal Case No. 10 of 1993 the Magistrate issued process to the accused - the builder and the owner. The builder and the owner challenged the orders of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the complaints and issuing process to them in Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 290 of 1993 and 289 of 1993 respectively, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not find any impropriety/illegality in the orders of the Magistrate issuing process to the owner and the builder and dismissed the Revision Applications. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the Revision Applications have been challenged in Criminal Writ Petitions Nos. 875 of 1993 and 874 of 1993. n Criminal Case No. 128 of 1993, the Magistrate, after perusing the record and the affidavit placed before him, passed the following order :--

(3.) IN Criminal Writ Petitions Nos. 874 of 1993 and 875 of 1993, learned Counsel for the petitioners - the builder and the owner - submitted that the learned Magistrate having sent for a report under section 202 of the Code, could not have issued the process to the petitioners till the police report had been received. He submitted that the Magistrate sent for the report as he did not find sufficient material for issuing the process. I am not satisfied with the submission made. The Magistrate did sent for the report under section 202 of the Code but the report was not received and thereafter, considering the material as present on record, the Magistrate issued process to the accused in the complaints. The orders of the Magistrate issuing process upon the material available on record cannot be faulted. In this connection, I draw support from the decision of this Court in (Shriram v. Ratanlal) 1980 Mh. L. J. 765, where it was observed :--