High Court

Legal Reasoning

cwp-195.251 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.195 OF 2025Shri Rajabhau S/o Shriram Phad,Age-43 years, Occu: Agri.,/Social Worker,R/o-Kanherwadi, Taluka-Parali Vaijanath,District-Beed. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,2) The Superintendent of Police, Beed, Taluka and District-Beed,3) The Police Inspector, Police Station, Bardapur, Taluka-Ambejogai, District-Beed. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. A.D. Khedkar Advocate h/f. Mr. S.R. Sapkal Advocate for Petitioner. Ms. P.R. Bharaswadkar, A.P.P. for Respondents. ... CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 18th MARCH, 2025 ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :1.Present Writ Petition has been filed for following reliefs:- cwp-195.252“[B]To direct respondent No.3 to register anoffence on the basis of complaint dated 23.09.2024and 14.01.2025 filed by the petitioner by issuingwrit of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,order or direction in the like nature.” 2.Heard learned Advocate Mr. A.D. Khedkar holding forlearned Advocate Mr. S.R. Sapkal for petitioner and learned APPMs. P.R. Bharaswadkar for respondents.3.Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that in thecompliant that he has filed with Police Inspector, Bardapur PoliceStation, Taluka-Ambajogai, District-Beed, on 23rd September2024, he had made allegations against the chairman and othersof Jagmitra Sugar Mills Private Limited, at village Pusa, Taluka-Ambajogai, District-Beed. In 2010, the then Minister, Mr.Dhananjay Munde and others were taking active part in raisingsugar factory and were insisting upon the petitioner that heshould invest an amount which will give him financial benefitsand then he would also be taken as director of the sugar factory.Therefore, time and again the petitioner had invested an amount cwp-195.253of Rs.75,00,000/- in the capital. It was promised that he wouldbe given shares equivalent to the said amount. Thereafter it wastold to the petitioner that the capital that was raised, was to theextent of Rs.1,12,71,990/-. The bank accounts were opened andthe steps were taken to raise and construct the sugar factory.However, since last 9 to 10 years, the chairman and directors ofthe sugar factory had not given any information as to whetherthere is any profit or loss. This information has been intentionallysuppressed from the share holders. There is a terror of Mr.Dhananjay Munde and others in the area. Those persons havecollected amount in crores of rupees and have not accounted for.False accounts have been drawn and the balance-sheet of theyear 2015 has been shown. The amount so generated andsuppressed, has been used by the then Minister for the purposeof contesting election. Mr. Dhananjay Munde and others haveintentionally committed forgery in the documents andmisappropriated crores of rupees. Though the Police hadreceived the complaint dated 23rd September 2024, the FirstInformation Report (for short “the FIR”) was not registered.Therefore, the petitioner had made complaint to theSuperintendent of Police, District-Beed on 11th January 2025, but cwp-195.254the cognizance has not been taken thereafter also and therefore,present Petition.4.It was specifically asked to the petitioner’s Advocate thatwhen exactly the petitioner realized that he has been defraudedor the offence has been committed by those accused persons,then there was no definite answer from the learned Advocate forthe petitioner. When the legal aspect involved in the matter waspointed out, the Advocate for the petitioner has relied on thedecision passed by the co-equal Bench in Criminal Writ PetitionNo.1309 of 2018, filed by the present petitioner himself againstthe State and others, wherein the then said Minister was also anaccused. By order dated 10th June 2019, the co-equal Bench haddirected the police authorities to register the FIR on the basis ofthe complaint filed by the petitioner. It is stated that it wasregarding the cheating in respect of grabbing of Governmentland and converting it into non-agricultural use for startingprivate sugar factory. Learned Advocate for the petitioner furthersubmits that respondent No.8 in the said Petition, Mr. WalmikBaburao Karad and another had approached the Hon’bleSupreme Court challenging the said order passed by this Court inCriminal Writ Petition No.1309 of 2018, by filing Petition for cwp-195.255Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5287 of 2019 and by orderdated 8th December 2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court refused tointerfere and then permission was granted to the petitionerstherein to withdraw the Special Leave Petition. Therefore,according to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, directionscan be issued for registration of the FIR on the basis ofcomplaint. It was then asked by this Court, as to why exhaustivecomplaint / FIR was not filed at that time, or any writ petitionwas not preferred at that time itself when according to thepetitioner there is suppression by the chairman and directors inrespect of the sugar factory’s affair for more than 9 to 10 years.The learned Advocate for the petitioner tried to submit that hehas not taken instructions from his client on this point. 5.It is to be noted that as per the petitioner, he had filed thewritten complaint with the Police on 23rd September 2024 andwhen no action was taken, he made a complaint about the sameto the Superintendent of Police on 11th January 2025. Thus, if thepetitioner had taken the steps as per the decision in PriyankaSrivastava and another vs. State of UP and another, 2015 (6)SCC 287, then alternate remedy available for him is to approachthe learned Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 156(3) cwp-195.256of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no explanation in theentire Petition as to why the petitioner had not approached thelearned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Now, he wants to rely onthe order passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.1309of 2018, which was then confirmed by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt. However, in respect of this, we would like to say that thepetitioner is not then explaining, as to why he had filed thewritten complaint after the period of 9 to 10 years, or as to whyhe had not filed any writ petition along with Criminal WritPetition No.1309 of 2018. If the transaction is in respect of thesame sugar factory and within the knowledge of the petitioner,then his silence for 9 to 10 years is required to be consideredwith suspicion. With some ulterior motive then the petitioner isnow coming before this Court. He cannot be therefore, allowedto rely on the decision of this Court in Criminal Writ PetitionNo.1309 of 2018. 6.Here, the petitioner prays for registration of the FIR,however, we would like to rely on Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of UttarPradesh and others, 2008 (2) SCC 409, which was then followedin T.C. Thangaraj vs. V. Engammal & others, 2011(12) SCC 328,Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and cwp-195.257others, 2016(6) SCC 227 and M. Subramaniam and others vs. S.Janaki, 2020(16) SCC 728. In Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs.Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others, (supra), a note has beentaken of the decision in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradeshand others, (supra), wherein it has been observed that: “ If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not beenregistered by the police, or having been registered, properinvestigation is not being done, then the remedy of theaggrieved person is not to go to the High Court Under Article226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach theMagistrate concerned Under Section 156(3) CrPC. If such anapplication under Section 156(3) CrPC is made and theMagistrate is, prima facie, satisfied he can direct the FIR tobe registered, or if it has already been registered, he candirect proper investigation to be done which includes in hisdiscretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending changeof the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation isdone in the matter.”7.In Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhageand others, (supra), it is then specifically observed that:-“ We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case because what we havefound in this Country is that the High Courts have beenflooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the firstinformation report or praying for a proper investigation.”.It has been further observed that:- cwp-195.258“ We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain suchwrit petitions, then they will be flooded with such writpetitions and will not be able to do any other work exceptdealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that thecomplainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approachthe concerned Magistrate Under Section 156(3), Code ofCriminal Procedure, and if he does so, the Magistrate willensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the firstinformation report and also ensure a proper investigation inthe matter, and he can also monitor the investigation.”8.Note of Ramesh Kumari vs. State (NCT of Delhi) andothers, (2006) 2 SCC 677, was taken in T.C. Thangaraj vs. V.Engammal & others, (supra) and it has been held that the two-Judge Bench decision in Ramesh Kumari vs. State (NCT of Delhi)and others, (supra) will have to be now read in the light of theprinciples laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’bleSupreme Court in State of West Bengal and others vs.Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal andothers, [(2010) 3 SCC 571, and then in T.C. Thangaraj vs. V.Engammal & others, (supra), the decision in Sakiri Vasu Vs.State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (supra) was relied upon.9.Recently, in Ranjit Singh Bath and another vs. UnionTerritory Chandigarh and another, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 329(Criminal Appeal No.4313 of 2024, decided on 6th March 2025 by cwp-195.259the Hon’ble Supreme Court), it has been observed that, “Beforea complainant chooses to adopt a remedy under Section 156(3) of theCrPC, he must exhaust his remedies under sub-Sections (1) and (3) ofSection 154 of the CrPC and he must make those averments in thecomplaint and produce the documents in support.” The law laid downin Priyanka Srivastava and another vs. State of UP and another,(supra) has been reiterated.10.It will not be out of place to mention here that we hadbrought to the notice of the learned Advocate for the petitionerthe above decisions in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh andothers, (supra) etc., and thereafter we had permitted him totake instructions as well as go through the decisions of theHon’ble Supreme Court. Even after taking note of all thosedecisions, instead of opting for liberty to approach the learnedMagistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of CriminalProcedure by withdrawing this Writ Petition, the learnedAdvocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner wantsorder. We deprecate such practice. When the position of law ispointed out by the Court, then it is the Advocate who shouldtake the decision and not to leave it to the client. It is for him toexplain the law to the client as to what can happen in the matter. cwp-195.2510Unnecessary time of the Court is wasted in the present matterand therefore, we impose costs on the petitioner.11.The Writ Petition stands dismissed with costs ofRs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), to bedeposited by the petitioner with the High Court Legal ServicesSub-Committee, Aurangabad, within one month.12.Place the matter on 21st April 2025, for compliance. [SANJAY A. DESHMUKH] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE asb/APR25