Criminal Application No. 1411 of 2023 · Bombaybench High Court
Case Details
2025:BHC-AUG:23656-DB appln-1411-2023 with + 4.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1411 OF 2023Mobinkhan s/o Nawabkhan PathanAge: 34 years, Occu.: Advocate,R/o. Shyam Nagar, Latur. .. ApplicantsVersus1.State of MaharashtraThrough Officer-in-charge.2.The Sub Divisional Police Officer/Deputy Superintendent of Police,Sub-Division Latur City, Latur,Taluka and District Latur.3.Shubham s/o Govind @ Bhausaheb BansudeAge: 27 years, Occu.: Agri./Business,4.Govind s/o Sopanrao BansudeAge: 59 years, Occu.: Agri./Business.Both R/o. Bansude Niwas, Saraf line,Latur, Tq. And Dist. Latur... Respondents…WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1410 OF 2023Mobinkhan s/o Nawabkhan PathanAge: 34 years, Occu.: Advocate,R/o. Shyam Nagar, Latur. .. ApplicantVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough the Officer In-charge,Vivekanand Chowk Police Station,Latur, Taluka and District Latur.2.The Sub Divisional Police Officer/Deputy Superintendent of Police,Sub-Division Latur City, Latur,Taluka and District Latur.[1] appln-1411-2023 with + 4.odt3.Shubham s/o Govind @ Bhausaheb BansudeAge: 27 years, Occu.: Agri./Business,4.Govind s/o Sopanrao BansudeAge: 59 years, Occu.: Agri./Business.Both R/o. Bansude Niwas, Saraf line,Latur, Tq. And Dist. Latur... Respondents…WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1481 OF 2025IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3065 OF 20231.Bapurao s/o Madhavrao HajareAge: 65 years, Occu.: Business,2.Sarla w/o Bapusaheb HajareAge: 60 years, Occu.: Homemaker3.Arun s/o Bapurao HajareAge: 40 years, Occu.: Business.4.Raman s/o Bapurao HajareAge: 34 years, Occu.: Business,5.Fulabai w/o Bhausaheb BansudeAge: 77 years, Occu.: HomemakerApplicant Nos.1 to 5 are R/o. BungalowNo.4, Purushottam Park, Barshi Road,Tq. And Dist. Latur.6.Venkat s/o Sanjivan AutadeAge: 32 years, Occu.: Private job,R/o. Raje Shivaji Nagar, Behind Hotel Nikki, Barshi Road, Tq. And Dist. Latur. .. ApplicantsVersus1.The State of MaharashtraIn-charge Officer, Police Station Gandhi,Chowk, Taluka and District Latur.2.Shubham s/o Govind @ Bhausaheb BansudeAge: 30 years, Occu.: Agri. And Business,[2] appln-1411-2023 with + 4.odt3.Govind s/o Sopanrao BansudeAge: 62 Years, Occu.: As above,.. Respondents …WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3065 OF 20231.Bapurao s/o Madhavrao HajareAge: 63 years, Occu.: Business,2.Sarla w/o Bapusaheb HajareAge: 58 years, Occu.: Homemaker3.Arun s/o Bapurao HajareAge: 38 years, Occu.: Business.4.Raman s/o Bapurao HajareAge: 32 years, Occu.: Business,5.Fulabai w/o Bhausaheb BansudeAge: 75 years, Occu.: HomemakerApplicant Nos.1 to 5 R/o. Mati Nagar,Latur.6.Venkat s/o Sanjivan AutadeAge: 30 years, Occu.: Job,R/o. Raje Shivaji Nagar, Latur. .. ApplicantsVersus1.The State of MaharashtraIn-charge Officer, Police Station Gandhi,Chowk, Taluka and District Latur.2.Shubham s/o Govind @ Bhausaheb BansudeAge: 30 years, Occu.: Agri. And Business,3.Govind s/o Sopanrao BansudeAge: 62 Years, Occu.: As above,.. Respondents …WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3066 OF 20231.Bapurao s/o Madhavrao HajareAge: 63 years, Occu.: Business,[3]
Legal Reasoning
appln-1411-2023 with + 4.odt2.Sarla w/o Bapusaheb HajareAge: 58 years, Occu.: Homemaker3.Arun s/o Bapurao HajareAge: 38 years, Occu.: Business.4.Raman s/o Bapurao HajareAge: 32 years, Occu.: Business,5.Fulabai w/o Bhausaheb BansudeAge: 75 years, Occu.: HomemakerApplicant Nos.1 to 5 R/o. Mati Nagar,Latur.6.Venkat s/o Sanjivan AutadeAge: 30 years, Occu.: Job,R/o. Raje Shivaji Nagar, Latur... Applicants Versus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough the Officer In-charge,Vivekanand Chowk Police Station,Latur, Taluka and District Latur.2.Shubham s/o Govind @ Bhausaheb BansudeAge: 30 years, Occu.: Agri. And Business,R/o. Bansude Niwas, Sarafa Laine,Latur, Tq. And Dist. Latur.3.Govind s/o Sopanrao BansudeAge: 62 Years, Occu.: As above... Respondents……….Ms. Anjali Dube (Bajpai), Advocate for applicants in Criminal Application Nos.1411 of2023 and 1410 of 2023.Mr. R. S. Deshmukh, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. Vishal A. Chavan, Advocate for theapplicants in Criminal Application Nos.3065 of 2023, 3066 of 2023 and 1481 of 2025.Mr. A. R. Kale, Addl. PP for respondent/State in all the matters.Mr. Deepak Bansude, Advocate a/w Mr. C. P. Patil, Advocate for respondent Nos.2and 3 in Criminal Application Nos.3065 of 2023 and 3066 of 2023 and for respondentNos.3 and 4 in Criminal Application No.1411 of 2023. ……….[4] appln-1411-2023 with + 4.odt CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. RESERVED ON : 23 JUNE 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 04 SEPTEMBER 2025ORDER (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) :-.All these matters are taken up together for discussion to avoidrepetition, as it contains some common facts.2.Criminal Application Nos.1411 of 2023 and 3065 of 2023 havebeen filed for quashment of the FIR vide Crime No.28 of 2023 registeredwith Gandhi Chowk Police Station, District Latur on 18.01.2023. It cameto be registered on the basis of the order passed by learned JudicialMagistrate First Class, Latur on 21.12.2022 in Criminal MiscellaneousApplication No.1044 of 2022. Criminal Application Nos.1410 of 2023 and3066 of 2023 have been filed for quashment of the FIR vide Crime No.89of 2023 registered with Vivekanand Chowk Police Station, District Latur.Both the FIRs i.e. Crime No.28 of 2023 and Crime No.89 of 2023 wereregistered for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 417,420, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.Criminal Application No.1481 of 2025 has been filed in CriminalApplication No.3065 of 2023 for initiating proceedings for perjury againstnon applicant Nos.2 and 3 for filing forged and fabricated documents andfor directions to register the appropriate proceedings. [5] appln-1411-2023 with + 4.odt3.Heard learned Advocate Ms. Anjali Dube (Bajpai) for theapplicants in Criminal Application Nos.1411 of 2023 and 1410 of 2023,learned Senior Counsel Mr. R. S. Deshmukh instructed by learnedAdvocate Mr. V. A. Chavan for the applicants in Criminal ApplicationNos.3065 of 2023, 3066 of 2023 and 1481 of 2025, learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor Mr. A. R. Kale for respondent/State in all the mattersand learned Advocate Mr. Deepak Bansude along with learned AdvocateMr. C. P. Patil for respondent Nos.2 and 3 in Criminal ApplicationNo.3065 of 2023 and 3066 of 2023 and for respondent Nos.3 and 4 inCriminal Application No.1411 of 2023.4.It has been vehemently submitted by learned Senior CounselMr. R. S. Deshmukh instructed by learned Advocate Mr. V. A. Chavan forthe applicants in Criminal Application Nos.3065 of 2023, 3066 of 2023and 1481 of 2025 that Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1044 of2022 was filed by the respondent/informant under Section 156(3) of theCode of Criminal Procedure, which came to be allowed on 21.12.2022and if we peruse the original application, then it can be seen that aftergiving the story, it has been stated that the original plaintiff i.e. thecomplainant had filed Regular Civil Suit No.328 of 2015 against accusedNo.5 seeking perpetual and mandatory injunction, declaration etc. and itis pending before the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Latur.The concerned Civil Court passed an order at Exhibit-17 on 03.07.2015[6] appln-1411-2023 with + 4.odtand directed accused No.5 to maintain status quo in respect of entiresuit property described in plaint paragraph No.2A to 2F. The said entireorder continued on the fixed dates until the decision on Exhibit-05 on07.09.2015. It is alleged in the complaint that in spite of the status quoorder, which is in existence and unchallenged, the accused personshave raised loan by mortgaging the suit property to the financialinstitutions and also got the names mutated to the revenue record. It isalleged that though one Bhausaheb Bansude had expired in RubyHospital, Pune on 13.05.2015, bogus death certificate was obtained fromLatur Mahanagarpalika saying that Bhausaheb had expired at MotinagarBansude Niwas at Latur. Several other documents were got fabricatedand on the basis of those fabricated documents, there is cheating as wellas misappropriation. Even there is allegations about bogus gift deedgetting executed, however, all these are the subject matter of the civilsuit. Further, there was another Criminal Miscellaneous Application filedby one Shubham Bansude and Govind Bansude i.e. the respondents fortaking action under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1044 of 2022 came to be filed on02.11.2022, whereas Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1046 of2022 came to be filed on 03.11.2022. The contents in both the mattersare same. There is reference of the status quo order in Regular CivilSuit No.328 of 2015, however, there is no explanation or in other words,[7] appln-1411-2023 with + 4.odtthere is total suppression of the fact that already Criminal MiscellaneousApplication No.1044 of 2022 has been filed. Criminal MiscellaneousApplication No.1046 of 2022 came to be rejected by the learned JudicialMagistrate First Class on 04.02.2023. Though it was so rejected, yet theFIR was filed on 06.02.2023 with Vivekanand Chowk Police Station. TheFIR in both the matters is nothing but an abuse of process of law whenthe Civil Court has seized with the matter. In fact, there is totalsuppression of fact. In fact, the applicant Mobinkhan NawabkhanPathan is an Advocate, who was working in the office of Senior AdvocateAshish Bajpai and was practicing in Latur. In the said suit, applicantMobinkhan came to be unnecessarily added as defendant No.2.Descendants of Sopanrao filed 5-6 Civil Suits against Fulabai and herbrothers and Advocate Ashish Bajpai was representing Fulabai Bansude.Even 10-15 private complaints in the Courts of different JudicialMagistrate First Class, Latur came to be filed against police officers,friends of late Bhausaheb Bansude, who supported Bhausaheb’s widowFulabai and it was also against 12 lawyers, who had representedFulabai. The Advocate representing respondent Nos.3 to 4 is their familymember. In fact, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1043 of 2022was filed with learned 3rd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur, CriminalMiscellaneous Application No.1044 of 2022 was filed with 4th JudicialMagistrate First Class, Latur and Criminal Miscellaneous Application[8] appln-1411-2023 with + 4.odtNo.1046 of 2022 was filed with learned Joint Judicial Magistrate FirstClass, Latur. They were containing almost the same allegations and thatis why they were arising out of single complaint that was allegedly madebefore the Superintendent of Latur on 22.09.2022. In verbatim, they aresame except the name of bank and the amount of loan that was taken byFulabai and her brother for mortgaging the respective properties. Now,the position is that Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1046 of 2022has been rejected by the concerned Court on 04.02.2023, yet the FIRcame to be lodged. There is also suppression of fact as to whathappened in the civil suit. Now, during the pendency of theseapplications, charge-sheet has been filed. The allegations againstapplicant Mobinkhan are vague. There is absolutely no avernment andthe material to show that he has with criminal intention prepared anyforged document. Further, even if a document is alleged to be forged,yet even in the order passed below Exhibit-05 in the said civil suit dated11.11.2022, there are no observations that any record has been forgedthat too with the help of legal expert/lawyer. All these things have beenthen observed by the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class whilepassing the order dated 04.02.2023 in Criminal MiscellaneousApplication No.1046 of 2022.5.Learned Senior Counsel further states that after the charge-sheethas been filed by Gandhi Chowk Police Station and perusal of the[9] appln-1411-2023 with + 4.odtdocuments therein, certain facts have been noted. In fact, this Court hadsubstantially heard the matter on 05.02.2025 and in pursuance to theadditional documents filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 before this Courton 10.02.2025, the applicants have given additional affidavit on17.02.2025. It can be seen that those additional documents which wereproduced by the informants on 10.02.2025 are forged and fabricated inorder to obtain favourable orders. When the matter was heard at length,this Court had directed the informants to produce on record thecomplaint filed before the Police Inspector, Gandhi Chowk Police Stationin compliance of Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Accordingly, those documents came to be produced at page Nos.1 to 54through e-filing and thereafter on 10.02.2025, hard copies weresubmitted. Copy of the same was also supplied to the applicants on thesame day. In this connection, the applicants want to say that in CriminalMiscellaneous Application No.1044 of 2022 before the learned JudicialMagistrate First Class, it was stated that there was compliance underSection 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by complaint dated22.09.2022, which was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Latur.The document at Serial No.12 in the list of documents Exhibit-05 in thesaid Miscellaneous Application is not similar. It is bogus and forgeddocument as the complaint under Section 154(1) of the Code of CriminalProcedure appears to be presented on the same date i.e. 22.09.2022.[10] appln-1411-2023 with + 4.odtPrima facie the complaint under Section 154(1) of the Code of CriminalProcedure allegedly on 22.09.2022 of page No.6 bears the reference ofthe order passed by learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division belowExhibit-05 on 11.11.2022 and therefore, that document is forged andappears to have been prepared. Learned Senior Counsel also tried todemonstrate as to how there is overwriting in the serial numbers of thelist of documents and submits that since it can be seen that there wasabsolutely no compliance of the directions in Priyanka Srivastava andanother vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2015) 6 SCC 287,Vikram Johar Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others., [AIR 2019SC 2109] and Babu Venkatesh and others vs. State of Karnatakaand another, [Criminal Appeal No. 252 of 2022 (Arising Out Of SLP(Crl.) No. 2183 Of 2021)] decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on18.02.2022. There was no mandatory compliance, yet with the help offorged documents, now the informants want to project that there was acompliance before the order was passed by the learned JudicialMagistrate First Class under Section 156(3) in Criminal MiscellaneousApplication No.1044 of 2022 on 21.12.2022 and, therefore, there is aperjury committed by the informants and, therefore, action needs to betaken against them.6.Learned Senior Counsel submits that the applicants in CriminalApplication No.3066 of 2023 are the other accused persons and it can[11] appln-1411-2023 with + 4.odtbe seen that Crime No.89 of 2023 came to be registered against themon the basis of order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous ApplicationNo.1043 of 2022 by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3,Latur on 03.02.2023. The impugned order does not show that there wascompliance of the guidelines in Priyanka Srivastava (Supra). It oughtto have been pointed out by the informants that the substantial questionor substantial facts were already pleaded in Criminal MiscellaneousApplication No.1044 of 2022 and the other matters ought to have beenthen brought under one roof. Therefore, when there is no compliance orproper compliance of the guidelines in Priyanka Srivastava (Supra),the registration of the FIR itself is illegal and the applicants then need notbe asked to face the trial.7.Learned APP as well as learned Advocate for respondent Nos.3and 4, who had mostly appeared through Video Conferencing, stronglyopposed the applications and submitted that though the basic sourceregarding the status quo order is same, yet the cause of action arosewithin the jurisdiction of different Magistrates. In defiance to the order ofstatus quo, the property has been mortgaged, huge amount of loan hasbeen taken, even the mutation has been got effected after the said order.The falsity or fabrication of documents was even prior to the civil suit.Learned Advocate for the informants has pleaded the same facts whichare pleaded in Criminal Miscellaneous Application Nos.1044 of 2022,[12] appln-1411-2023 with + 4.odt1043 of 2022 and 1046 of 2022, which are in respect of the joint familyproperty and then the claim of the accused persons as widow ofBhausaheb. In fact, Bhausaheb had legally adopted informantNo.1/Shubham. Bhausaheb was Karta and manager of the joint family.When accused No.5 Fulabai claimed herself to be the widow, then shewas in collusion with other accused and with an intention to grab thehuge property, fabricated and forged the documents. The status quoorder came to be passed in Regular Civil Suit No.328 of 2015 on07.09.2015 and it continued till the order below Exhibit-05 for temporaryinjunction was passed on 07.09.2015. Now, in breach of the said statusquo order, when several transactions have been made at differentplaces, each place and each act has given cause of action for lodgingthe report. Death certificate of Bhausaheb has been falsely prepared.Even from the locker of the bank, gold ornaments have been takenwithout the consent of the informant. Under such circumstance, there isno illegality committed in filing different criminal applications. All theguidelines in Priyanka Srivastava (Supra) have been fulfilled. Thecontents in Criminal Miscellaneous Applications would show that thereare averments that when the informants/applicants therein had gone tolodge the FIR, the Police Station had not accepted the same and,therefore, the written complaint was filed to Superintendent of Police,Latur on 22.09.2022. There is no forgery or perjury committed by the[13] appln-1411-2023 with + 4.odtinformants. Learned Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3/informantshas also made certain submissions, which cannot be considered as partof the present matters, because for the other alleged acts, the actionappears to have already been taken. It was personal in nature for theAdvocate and when he is arguing in the capacity as Advocate, thatcannot be considered.8.Thus, taking note of all these cases in the nutshell, it can be saidthat the main argument on behalf of the applicants arrayed as accused isthat there was no compliance of Section 154(3) of the Code of CriminalProcedure and in absence of such compliance, if the order is passedunder Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, then accordingto them it is illegal and the FIRs cannot be allowed to sustain. Thesecond limb they want to challenge is that when the informants intendedto say that the basis is same or major acts are same, then multiple FIRsor the second FIR is not maintainable.9.Before turning to the scrutiny of facts, we would like to considerthe legal position. Certainly, we are guided by the decision in PriyankaSrivastava (Supra), when it comes to passing an order under Section156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein it has been observedthat :-“27.In our considered opinion, a stage has come in thiscountry where Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure[14] appln-1411-2023 with + 4.odtapplications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn bythe applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction ofthe Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, thelearned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truthand also can verify the veracity of the allegations. Thisaffidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We arecompelled to say so as such kind of applications are beingfiled in a routine manner without taking any responsibilitywhatsoever only to harass certain persons.That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming whenone tries to pick up people who are passing orders under astatutory provision which can be challenged under theframework of said Act or Under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in acriminal court as if somebody is determined to settle thescores.We have already indicated that there has to be priorapplications Under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing apetition Under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should beclearly spelt out in the application and necessary documentsto that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a directionthat an the application Under Section 156(3) be supported byan affidavit so that the person making the application shouldbe conscious and also endeavour to see that no falseaffidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found tobe false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance withlaw. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of theMagistrate Under Section 156(3). That apart, we havealready stated that the veracity of the same can also beverified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the[15] appln-1411-2023 with + 4.odtnature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say soas a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonialdispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medicalnegligence cases, corruption cases and the cases wherethere is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminalprosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed.That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware ofthe delay in lodging of the FIR.”10.Therefore, we would certainly say that in order to see as towhether there was compliance of the guidelines in Priyanka Srivastava(Supra), when we had heard the matter substantially on 05.02.2025, wehad adjourned the matter for production of documents by respondentNos.3 and 4. Those documents came to be produced on 10.02.2025 andthen the matter was adjourned for the study of those documents by theother side. Now, before turning to those documents, we would like toconsider the pleadings in Criminal Miscellaneous Applications. Exceptthe certain amount of change in the property, rest all the contentions aresame, rather copy paste. It appears that there was only one writtencomplaint that was made to Superintendent of Police, Latur on22.09.2022. The pleading in clear terms does not specify that a writtencomplaint was submitted to the concerned Police Stations. At the cost ofrepetition, we would like to say that the offence under CriminalMiscellaneous Application No.1044 of 2022 was to be registered withGandhi Chowk Police Station, the offence under Criminal Miscellaneous[16] appln-1411-2023 with + 4.odtApplication No.1043 of 2022 was to be registered with VivekanandChowk Police Station and the offence under Criminal MiscellaneousApplication No.1046 of 2022 was to be registered with Shivaji NagarPolice Station, Latur. Under such circumstance, there ought to havebeen then three different written complaints to the different policestations (may be or may not be of the same date). Now, along with thecharge-sheet No.60 of 2024 in respect of Crime No.28 of 2023, there isno such document dated 22.09.2022 to Gandhi Chowk Police Station.There is of course the written complaint to Superintendent of Police,Latur dated 22.09.2022. Even in that complaint, there is no recital thatthe informants had approached the concerned Police Station and thePolice Station has refused to register the FIR. A complaint allegedly begiven in writing by informant Shubham dated 19.01.2023 has beenannexed to the charge-sheet to which we are not concerned. Now,recently, in S. N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.,[Criminal Appeal No.___ of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition(Criminal) No.8626 of 2024)], after taking note of the decisionsincluding Priyanka Srivastava (Supra) it has been observed thus :-“We sum up our conclusions on this score as follows : (i)Directions issued in Priyanka Srivastava (Supra) aremandatory; (ii) Guidelines laid down in PriyankaSrivastava (Supra) operate prospectively; (iii) Non-filingof the supporting affidavit is a curable defect, but must becured before the Magistrate passes any substantive[17] appln-1411-2023 with + 4.odtorder on the complaint/application, and; (iv) if theMagistrate proceeds without the requisite affidavit, suchorder/any consequential orders/proceedings can bequashed on the sole ground of non-compliance withPriyanka Srivastava (Supra).”Though this case was mainly in respect of non filing of FIR, yet thelast is relevant for us in Priyanka Srivastava (Supra), wherein it hasbeen observed thus :-“26. At this stage it is seemly to state that power underSection 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. Acourt of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps atthe stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his ownwhim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. Aprincipled and really grieved citizen with clean handsmust have free access to invoke the said power. Itprotects the citizens but when pervert litigations takesthis route to harass their fellows citizens, efforts are to bemade to scuttle and curb the same.”11.The stages then will have to be followed by the complainant orapplicant. He should approach the police station first under Section154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if there is refusal to take hisoral information, then there should be attempt to register the FIR bygiving a written complaint to the police station and then the question ofstage under Section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure wouldarise, because Section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure uses[18] appln-1411-2023 with + 4.odtthe words “any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer incharge of the police station to record the information referred to in subsection (1) may send the substance in writing by the post to theSuperintendent of Police concerned ….” Therefore, before takingrecourse under Section 154(3) there has to be compliance under Section154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Here, in this case, it appearsthat the informant has directly given a written complaint to theSuperintendent of Police. Now, interestingly in Criminal RevisionApplication No.04 of 2022 it appears that a pursis came to be filed onbehalf of the informant/respondent therein thereby filing the photocopy ofthe complaint given by them at Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur andalong with it, the said written complaint dated 22.09.2022 was produced.That means, this document has been filed before the Revisional Courtand not before the trial Court/learned Judicial Magistrate First Class andon page No.6, there is a reference of order dated 11.11.2022 passed inthe civil suit and, therefore, now, the learned Senior Counsel appearingfor the applicants submit that this is a forged document. Certainly, weare taking note of the fact that in complaint application filed before thePolice Station on 22.09.2022, there could not have been a reference oforder dated 11.11.2022 i.e. the order that came to be passed in future.Now, as regards action of perjury is concerned, the said point wasavailable for the applicants to be agitated before the Revisional Court,[19] appln-1411-2023 with + 4.odtbut it appears that it has not been agitated and the delay has not beenexplained and, therefore, we will not exercise our powers in CriminalApplication No.1481 of 2025 filed in Criminal Application No.3065 of2023 for directions to take action for perjury. The applicant concerned oraggrieved party is at liberty to take that action. 12.The fact, however, remains is that there was no compliance ofSection 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, theCourts, who passed the order in Criminal Miscellaneous ApplicationNos.1043 of 2022 and 1044 of 2022, have committed gross error andillegality. Further, as regards Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1046of 2022, it is to be noted that the said application came to be rejected on04.02.2023. Then the question arises as to how Crime No.89 of 2023came to be registered on 06.02.2023 is a question and, therefore, thatFIR is also required to be quashed and set aside. The charge-sheetappears to be filed only in respect of Crime No.28 of 2023.13.One more aspect that is required to be noted is that thephotocopies of the Civil Suit has been produced, which show that thesuit came to be filed on 29.06.2015. Thereafter, notices were issued. Noex parte injunction was granted. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 appears tohave been appeared on 03.07.2015 and on that day, there was anapplication on behalf of the plaintiffs praying for maintenance of status[20] appln-1411-2023 with + 4.odtquo. That application was not signed by any of the plaintiffs, but itappears that it was only signed by the Advocate. It was not evensupported by separate affidavit though the application Exhibit-05 waspending. Say on behalf of defendants who appeared was taken and anorder was passed giving reasons directing the plaintiffs as well as boththe defendants to maintain status quo concerning the suit properties.Now, in that order, the status of the properties for maintaining status quowas not stated. Though that status was continued till 11.11.2022, it canbe seen from the order below Exhibit-05 that though there wassubmissions regarding breach of status quo, neither there was anapplication for status quo ante, nor there is observation by theconcerned Civil Court that there was a breach of order of status quo. Itappears that the plaintiffs had not even taken any separate action underOrder 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code. Exhibit-05 was then partlyallowed and defendant No.1 or anybody on her behalf were temporarilyrestrained from alienating the suit property 1-A, 1-C to 1-G by any modeor to any third person till the decision of the suit and further directionshave also been given. This is what has been observed by learned JointJudicial Magistrate First Class, Latur while rejecting CriminalMiscellaneous Application No.1046 of 2022. Further as observed inPriyanka Srivastava (Supra) in respect of abnormal delay/laches ininitiating criminal prosecution, a caution was given to the Magistrate for[21] appln-1411-2023 with + 4.odtpassing such order and, therefore, the learned Magistrate while rejectingCriminal Miscellaneous Application No.1046 of 2022 has stated that thecomplaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure hasbeen filed after a period of seven years from the date of filing of that suitwith an ulterior motive. At the cost of repetition, we would say that whenthe applications were mainly copy paste and then preferred before threedifferent Courts and then one Court come to the conclusion that there isno observance of Priyanka Srivastava (Supra) or based uponPriyanka Srivastava (Supra), some observations have been made,then under such circumstance, the result ought to have been same.There was no compliance of the three matters in respect of writtencomplaint under Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.There cannot be stage of directly approaching the superior i.e.Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of the Code of CriminalProcedure. We may also observe that there has to be some gapbetween the stage under Section 154(1) and Section 154 (3) of the Codeof Criminal Procedure, because the word used is “aggrieved”. Thecomplainant/informant should wait for a reasonable period and to seewhether there would be action taken upon his written complaint by thePolice Station under Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedureor not. There cannot be a simultaneous complaint applications on thesame day to the Police Station as well as to the District Superintendent[22] appln-1411-2023 with + 4.odtof Police. Therefore, when the guidelines of Priyanka Srivastava(Supra) have not been adhered to, the orders passed under Section156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are illegal and, therefore, theFIR lodged on their basis are also illegal and therefore, the consequentproceedings also. After the rejection of the application under Section156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there ought not to have beenthe FIR registered and, therefore, those proceedings should also resultin favour of the applicants. Hence, the following order :-ORDERI)Criminal Application Nos.1411 of 2023, Criminal ApplicationNo.1410 of 2023, Criminal Application No.3065 of 2023 andCriminal Application No. 3066 of 2023 stand allowed.II)The FIR vide Crime No.28 of 2023 dated 18.01.2023registered with Gandhi Chowk Police Station, District Latur as wellas the proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.441 of 2024pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur for theoffences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 417, 420, 465, 467,468, 470, 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code standquashed and set aside as against the applicants in CriminalApplication No.1411 of 2023 as well as the applicants in CriminalApplication No.3065 of 2023.[23] appln-1411-2023 with + 4.odtIII) The FIR vide Crime No.89 of 2023 dated 06.02.2023registered with Vivekanand Chowk Police Station, District Latur forthe offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 417, 420, 465,467, 468, 470, 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Codestands quashed and set aside as against the applicants inCriminal Application No.1410 of 2023 as well as the applicants inCriminal Application No.3066 of 2023.IV)Criminal Application No.1481 of 2025 stands rejected.[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGEJUDGEscm[24]