POOJA SHARMA Vs. RAVI SHANKAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Among the three revisions Crl.R.C.No.1186 of 2018 concerned is filed by Pooja Sharma D/o Mahesh Kumar Sharma and wife of Shailendra Sharma, Mahesh Kumar Sharma and Ramesh Kumar Sharma who are shown as proposed accused in the application filed by Ravi Shankar Sharma no other than divorced husband of Pooja Sharma vide FCOP.No.231 of 2011 order dated 16.09.2015 by the Judge Family Court, Hyderabad. The revision is arisen out of the appellate Court order in DV Appeal No.318 of 2016 (learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad) where the impugnment is against the order of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in S.R.No.486 of 2016 dated 10.03.2016. Said application is filed by Ravi Shankar Sharma supra against the present revision petitioners as respondent Nos.1 to 3 of whom Pooja Sharma is the petitioner in DVC.No.148 of 2012 against Ravi Shankar Sharma and others. That application in SR.486 of 2016 filed referring to Section 340 Cr.P.C. in requesting the Court by Ravi Shankar supra to prosecute Pooja Sharma, Mahesh Kumar Sharma and Ramesh Kumar Sharma respectively in alleging they forged Ex.D1 so called list of articles presented at the time of marriage and there was a dispute regarding the alleged list was a forged and fabricated in the proceedings covered by DVC.No.148 of 2012 and an expert opinion was sought for found that it is not genuine and a fabricated document and the DVC.No.148 of 2012 disposed of subsequently by granting relief of Rs.5,000/- costs against respondents with a direction not to interfere with her life and Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,00,000/- towards return of articles with joint and several liability and respondent No.1-husband of her was directed to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- from the date of order i.e., 21.01.2016 payable by 10th of every month. It is impugning the same DV Appeal No.173 of 2016 was filed and the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge disposed of the same on 31.10.2017 while not disturbing the monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month on R.1 of DVC by its confirmation, reduced Rs.5,00,000/- compensation to Rs.1,00,000/- for the so called domestic violence and also set aside the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards return of articles. Against that order of granting compensation and maintenance respectively modified by the appellate Court, both aggrieved filed 2 revisions viz., Crl.R.C.Nos.3254 of 2017 & 176 of 2018. Before going to those revisions, now coming back to Crl.R.C.No.1186 of 2018 in the factual background supra in seeking to prosecute by invoking Section 340 Cr.P.C. the order of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate dated 10.03.2016 reads that "This Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences mentioned in the petition and to conduct enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C., hence returned." The Appellate Court order against said return docket order dated 10.03.2016 is by setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate and by remanding the same for fresh consideration with observations particularly from Paras 5 to 10 that Ex.D1 opinion shows some signatures printed through some printing device and over written with a writing instrument from the expert opinion of Ex.P8 so called receipt which compared with S1 to S18 standard signatures, Q1 to Q3 disputed signatures thereby Ex.P8 cannot be relied to ascertain articles mentioned therein presented. The unnumbered petition filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. seeking to conduct a preliminary enquiry regarding the so called forgery of Ex.P8 it referred the expression of the Apex Court in K.T.M.S. Mohd. Vs. Union of India, 1992 AIR(SC) 1831 from the wording of Section 195 Cr.P.C. it is open to the Court, before which the offence was committed to prefer a complaint for prosecution of the offender and Section 340 Cr.P.C. prescribes procedure as to how that complaint may be preferred and the application filed would not have been returned by the Court below but for disposal on merits. Having regard to the above, remanded the matter. Same is the present impugnment.

(2.) The contentions impugning said lower appellate Court remanded the matter setting aside trial Magistrate orders in the petition seeking the so called enquiry to file a complaint, invoking Section 340 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate concerned, said order as unsustainable as per the revision petitioners Pooja Sharma, Mahesh Kumar Sharma and Ramesh Kumar Sharma respectively and that order is supported by the revision 1st respondentpetitioner therein Ravi Shankar Sharma supra.

(3.) There is no force in the contention of said Ravi Shankar Sharma that the revision is not maintainable, what the expression placed reliance of K. Sudhakaran vs. State of Kerala, 2009 4 SCC 168 is impugning once there is remedy of appeal direct filing of the revision won't lie. Here it is not the case. Appeal already maintained and against that appeal, revision filed is sustainable.