..1..
MHNS010018702023 Exhibit No. : 10.
Presented on : 17.03.2023
Registered on : 17.03.2023
Decided on : 06.01.2024
Duration : Years Months Days
00 09 20
In the Court of District Judge – 3 & Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik
( Presided over by B. V. Wagh )
Criminal Revision Application No. 60 of 2023.
1. Manohar Deoram Satpute, }
Age – 87 Years, Occ.- Agriculture, }
R/o. Sulewadi, Tal. Sinnar, }
Dist. Nashik. }
2. Mrs. Laxmibai Vishnu Thube, }
Age – 80 Years, Occ.- Housewife, }
R/o. Sukapur Peth, Near Soni }
Hospital, Shivaji Chowk, Bagur, } … Revisionist
Tal. & Dist. Nashik. } (Ori. Accused No.1 to 3)
3. Ramesh Manohar Satpute, }
Age – 47 Years, Occ.- Agriculture, }
R/o. Sulewadi, Tal. Sinnar, }
Dist. Nashik. }
At Present – Malsakore, }
Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik. }
V/s.
1. State of Maharashtra, }
2. Vimal Keru Kasar, }
Age – 60 Years, Occ.- Housewife, } … Respondents.
R/o. House No.276, Sutar Galli, } (Complainant)
Kadam Wada, Bhagur, }
Tal. & Dist. Nashik. }
..2..
Appearance :
Shri. V. R. Deshpande, Adv. for Revisionist.
Smt. B. N. Petkar, APP for State/Respondent No.1.
Shri. S. R. Arote, Adv. for Respondent No.2.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this 6th Day of January, 2024)
Applicants (accused No.1 to 3) assailed the legality,
propriety and correctness of the impugned order dated
18.01.2023 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Sinnar in Cri.M.A.No.472/2018 (RCC No.17/2023), wherein the
Ld. Magistrate issued Process against them for the offence
punishable under Section 199, 200, 465, 468, 471 r.w. 34 of
Indian Penal Code.
2. The parties to this Revision Application are hereinafter
referred as per their status as stood before the Ld. Magistrate.
3. The crux of the complaint is that the complainant’s
husband Keru died on 07.08.1997. Her mother-in-law Kaushabai
died on 03.02.1989. She being the heir of Keru is entitled to
represent the estate of her husband. There are four landed
properties situated at Patpimpri, Tal.Sinnar, Dist. Nashik.
Accused No.1 with an intent to grab the landed property has
filed false affidavit on 16.08.2012 before the Revenue Authority,
pursuant to the application and his affidavit four properties of
Kaushabai are recorded in his name. Accused No.3 is alleged to
have identified accused No.1. Similarly, accused No.1 & 2’
statements were recorded thereby they have given wrong
..3..
information about legal representative of Parvatibai @
Kaushabai. Accordingly, the mutation entry No.8390 is recorded
and thereafter, M.E.No.3277 is recorded wherein the accused
are shown to be legal representative of deceased and thereby
prepared false document and gave false information. The
complainant went to MIDC Police Station, Sinnar to lay report,
but, police station did not take any cognizance of her complaint.
Eventually, she filed complaint before the Ld. Magistrate for the
offence punishable under Section 471, 470, 468, 465, 464, 420,
196(2), 200 r.w. 34 of IPC for action under Section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C.
4. On presentation of the complaint and on verification of
affidavit, the Ld. Magistrate has turn down the request of the
complainant for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
However, complaint was placed for verification under section
200 of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 17.01.2019. On perusal of the
complaint and document, the Ld. Trial Court has postponed the
issuance of process and called the report of concern police
station under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. vide its order dated
22.03.2019. On receipt of the report and on perusal of the
contents of the application and verification, the Ld. Trial Court
has Issued Process against the accused vide its order dated
18.01.2023. The said order is assailed by the accused by
preferring instant Revision Application as per the grounds
mentioned in the Revision Memo.
5. On Notice, the complainant appeared and resisted the
Revision Petition.
..4..
6. Heard, Ld. Advocate Shri. V. R. Deshpande for the
applicants and Shri. S. R. Arote, Ld. Advocate for the
Respondent No.2.
7. Points for consideration is in the context is :
1. Whether the impugned order is
liable to be interfere with ? Partly Yes
2. What Order? As per final
Order.
Reasons
As to Point No.1 :-
8. The Ld. Advocate for the accused urged that the
complainant is diverting civil dispute in the criminal nature.
According to him, complainant is not heir of deceased
Kaushabai. As per the statement of the accused, their names are
recorded in the revenue record by mutation entry. The mutation
entry can be cancelled if the complainant has point out any
illegality in recording it. Though presumed for while that she
has right or interest in the property, she can agitate it in the civil
suit. Mutation entry does not confer any right or title. It is just
for fiscal purposes. He further urged that no offence is made out
as there is no forgery or false representation. He urged that the
Ld. Trial Court is wrong in issuing process as the affidavit or
statement is not before the Court but before the Revenue
Authority. In support of his submission, he relied on following
citations :
..5..
1 Jitendra Singh V/s. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.,
Supreme Court of India, Special Leave Petition (C)
No.13146 of 2021 dated 06.09.2021.
2 Rameshwar and Ors. V/s. State of Rajasthan and Anr.
2013(1) Cri. L.R. (Raj.) 452.
3 Mohan Kukreja V/s. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and
Anr., 2019(1) JCC 561.
9. Per Contra, the Ld. Advocate for the complainant in
addition to written-submission has submitted that the
complainant is wife of Keru, who is son of Late Kaushabai. She
has right and interest over the landed property. The accused by
filing false and fabricated affidavit has recorded their names in
the revenue record in exclusion of the complainant. It is further
urged that the accused has made false statement in declaration
knowing it to be false before the Revenue Authority and
recorded their names as a legal heirs of Kaushabai. In support of
his submission, he relied on following Citation :
1 Sri. Y.N.Sreenivasa V/s. The State of Karanataka, WP
No.15451 of 2019.
2 Guttappagouda V/s. Gururaj, Criminal Petition
No.201488/2018 connected with Criminal Petition
No.200029/2019 in CRL.P.No.201388/2019 on
15.12.2021.
3 Sushil Kumar V/s. State of Haryana, LAWS(SC)-1987-12-
81.
10. On going through the impugned order the Ld.
Magistrate has issued process under section 199, 200, 465, 468,
471 r.w. Section 34 of IPC. For ready reference Section 199, 200
and 463 of IPC and Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C. is quoted herein-
below :
..6..
199 False statement made in declaration which is by
law receivable as evidence.—Whoever, in any declaration made
or subscribed by him, which declaration any Court of Justice, or
any public servant or other person, is bound or authorized by
law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement
which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false
or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to the
object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be
punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.
200 Using as true such declaration knowing it to be
false.—Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true any
such declaration, knowing the same to be false in any material
point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false
evidence.
463 Whoever makes any false document or false
electronic record or part of a document or electronic record,
with intent to cause damage or injury], to the public or to any
person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person
to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied
contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be
committed, commits forgery.
Section 195(1) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(1) No Court shall take cognizance-
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188
(both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except
on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of
some other public servant to whom he is administratively
subordinate;
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following
sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), namely,
sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both
inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been
committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under
section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when
such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a
document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any
Court, or
..7..
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit,
or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub- clause (i) or
sub- clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court,
or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
(2) x x x x x x x x x x x x
11. The embargo contain in Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C. duly
suggest that no cognizance can be taken for the offence
punishable under Section 172 to 188 and 199, 200, 205 to 211
and 228 as well as any offence described in Section 463 or
punishable under section 471, 475 or 476 when such offence is
alleged to have been committed in respect of a document
produced or given in evidence in proceeding in any Court except
on the complaint in writing of the public servant concern.
12. So far as the allegation as to false declaration made in
affidavit before the Executive Magistrate that deceased
Kaushabai had no son, when the complainant being widow of
deceased Kaushabai’s son is concerned, Section 195(1)(b)(i)
debars the Court from taking any cognizance. The alleged false
affidavit is filed before the Executive Magistrate, being a quasi
judicial authority, who has acted pursuant to the affidavit and
recorded the name of accused in the revenue record of the land.
This aspect has not been taken into consideration by the Ld.
Trial Court. Notably, complaint is not filed by Revenue
Authority, and thus, there appears non-compliance of Section
195 of Cr.P.C. The documents which is produced before the
Revenue Authority by the applicants appears to be relied for
taking mutation entry. Earlier while rejecting the request of
investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. vide order dated
..8..
17.01.2019, the Ld. Magistrate has given the scenario of the
complaint and directed for verification of the complainant under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Later on, the Ld. Magistrate opted the
procedure under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and on receipt of the
report the process is issued.
13. I have gone through the Citation relied by the
Petitioner as well as respondent. This Citation relied were filed
under inherent jurisdiction as well as supervisory jurisdiction of
the Hon’ble High Court. Thus, in my humble opinion, it is not
apt to the present set of fact.
14. Though the Ld. Advocate has urged about no
offence is made out against the applicant, however, it is
desirable to remit the matter to the Ld. Magistrate for deciding
afresh considering the scope of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. Thus, it
would not proper to express any finding as to the legality of
invoking Section 465, 468 & 471 of IPC.
15. Reckoning the aforesaid aspect, the Ld. Magistrate did
not adhered the embargo of Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C. The
impugned order is erroneous and unsustainable. Thus, the
impugned order requires interference in the instant revision
petition. Ergo,
ORDER
1] Revision application is partly allowed.
The Order passed in Cri.M.A.No.472/2018 dated
18.01.2023 passed below Exh.1 by Ld. Judicial
..9..
Magistrate, First Class, Joint Court, Nashik is hereby
set aside and the matter is remitted back the Ld.
Magistrate to decide the complaint afresh according
to Law.
2] The parties to the Revision Application shall appear
before Trial Court on 21.02.2024.
3] R & P, if any, be return to concern Court forthwith.
Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.
Sd/-xxx
Place : Nashik. ( B. V. Wagh )
Additional Sessions Judge-3,
Date : 06.01.2024. Nashik.
