AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Bhangale, J.—Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties.
Heard Mr Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner; Mr. H Lingayat, for Respondent No. 1. I have also patiently heard Respondent No. 3, party in person, who is personally present and made submissions on his behalf as well as Respondent No. 2.
The petition questions the order as to issuance of process dated 25.3.2009 passed by learned first Judicial Magistrate, First Class Chandrapur in Complaint Case No. 129/2009. The facts of the case as they stand are these: It appears that one Sau. Nirmala Dinesh Hazara by occupation a teacher, resident of Shivaji Chowk, Chandrapur, lodged the complaint alleging that she had married with Dinesh Hazara, some 20 years prior to her marriage and have begotten two sons namely, Shreenath, aged about 19 years and Loknath, aged about 16 years out of the said wedlock. She is residing with her husband Dinesh since her marriage. The accused No. 1 Anant Hiraman Ghatole (Petitioner herein) is son of her maternal uncle; while sister of accused No. 1 was married with brother of the complainant Sau. Nirmala. Thus, accused No. 1 was on visiting terms at the maternal house of the complainant. The accused No. 1 got married with Purnima @ Aparna Madhav Sonbarase, some time in May, 2007. The accused No. 2 Sau. Sangeeta Raju Sonbarase is the sister-in-law of said Aparna; while accused No. 3 is the brother of Aparna. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 are not acquainted with the complainant. But, according to complainant, both the accused Nos. 2 and 3 hatched a conspiracy with a view to give mental and physical harassment to the complainant and to besmirch her reputation and defame her in the society, addressed a letter to the Headmaster in the School of the complainant on 29.7.2008 in which it is alleged that the complainant is married with accused No. 1Anant Hiraman Ghatole. As a result, the complainant suffered in her reputation and got severe mental tension. The accused Nos. 2 and 3, it is alleged, made false and fabricated allegations with ulterior motive to cause harm to the complainant. Thus, they are also indicted so as to take appropriate criminal action against them to punish them for their offences. It is also the case of the complainant that when complainant made an enquiry with reference to letter sent from accused Nos. 2 and 3 she came to know that the accused No. 1Anant went to the maternal house of the complainant; and in cahoot with his sister obtained photographs of the complainant, went to the Office of the Sub Registrar, Nagpur and in the absence of the complainant misused her photographs to prepare false marriage certificate, misusing the complainant''s material house name, Miss Nirmala D/o Maruti Chandekar to prepare a bogus marriage registration certificate. In fact, about this registration of marriage the complainant do not know anything but the matter came to the notice of the complainant because of the letter sent to Headmaster of School from accused Nos. 2 and 3 dated 29.7.2008. Thus, it is accusation from the the complainant that accused No. 1 went to the maternal house of the complainant, collected her photographs and information, prepared bogus documents, misusing complainant''s name of her maternal house prior to her marriage and created a bogus record of registration of marriage in order to serve his nefarious design and ulterior purpose, thereby lowering down the reputation of the complainant in society. Thus, the complainant sought action against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 for offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 500 read with Section 34 IPC. The complaint was lodged on 23rd February, 2009, which appears to have been verified by the complainant. It appears that complainant had also relied upon letter sent from Sangeeta Raju Sonbarase, addressed to the Headmaster of Acharya Kriplani Hindi Primary School, Chandrapur leveling accusations against the complainant to the effect that the complainant married with Anant Ghatole on 24.3.2003; when according to the complainant, she was attending her duties in above named school on that day at Chandrapur ; whereas it is alleged that Anant had married with Aparna on 9th May 2007 at Nagpur in respect of which the complaint was lodged with Panvel Police and the case is pending in the Court of JMFC, Panvel with reference to Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. The complainant had also entered into the correspondence with the Superintendent of Police, Chandrapur and in communication dated 10.2.2009 informed about the alleged offences against her committed by the accused Nos. 1 to 3 on the basis of false documents to misrepresent as if accused No. 1 had married with the complainant while they are also alleging that accused No. 1 had married with Sau. Aparna in May 2007. According to the complainant, accused No. 1 who is maternal brother of the complainant, misused her photographs and documents collected from her parents'' house, in order to prepare false and bogus documents for ulterior motive known to himself. It is also alleged that the accused Nos. 2 and 3 wrote vulgar vituperative correspondence to the complainant''s husband as well as at the place of her employment to defame her causing mental harassment. Furthermore, the accused No. 1 and accused Nos. 2 and 3 along with their relatives and cronies are making phone calls at the house of the complainant with a view to blackmail her. Thus, the Police Authority was informed by communication dated 10.2.2009 before the private complaint was lodged on 23rd February, 2009. It also appears alleged that the complainant had issued notices to accused Nos. 2 and 3 on 1st October, 2008 through Advocate regarding the letters issued from accused Nos. 2 and 3 on the basis of false and bogus documents with a view to blackmail her and demanding money from her. As a result, she is defamed and her mental condition has worsened to the extent that she was almost driven to the take an extreme step i.e. to commit suicide and, in that event, accused Nos. 2 and 3 would be held responsible. The notice was also addressed to accused No. 1 Anant Ghatole on 1.2.2008 regarding the alleged false and bogus documents in the nature of marriage registration certificate with a view to defame the complainant in the society. Thus, it appears that the exchange of correspondence took place. Notices through an Advocate were issued before the complaint was filed. It appears that the complainant''s verification was recorded in which she stated that the accused No. 1 had illegally prepared false document in connivance with accused Nos. 2 and 3 and the accused Nos. 2 and 3 are relying upon such documents in order to enter into correspondence with the Headmaster of the complainant''s school on 29.3.2008. Thus, she prayed for criminal action against all the three accused. It is the specific case of the complainant that she had married with Dinesh Hazara on 22nd May, 1990 and as stated above, have two sons and is living happily with her husband and sons.
Under these circumstances, looking into the accusations it appears that the learned JMFC Chandrapur by order dated 25.3.2009 passed the following order:-
Perused complaint, her verification and document s submitted. Heard Mr. Sagore, Adv. For complainant. It reveals that accused No. 1 got prepared false marriage certificate and on the basis of it he is trying to torture complainant with the help of accused Nos. 2 and 3. They also made some communication addressed to the H.M. And tried to defame in school amongst teacher colleagues and students. These are more and sufficient grounds to issue process against accused 1 to 3 for offences u/s 420, 471, 468, 500 r/ws. 34 IPC. Issue process against them.
Learned Advocate for the Petitioner placed reliance upon the ruling in K.T. Joseph Vs. State of Kerala and Another, and submitted that in view of the amendment to Section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 operating with effect from 23rd June,2006 by Central Amendment Act No. 25/2006, it is mandatory on the part of the Magistrate to conduct an enquiry u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure The Magistrate in such case has discretion to record further sworn statement, if necessary, in the case when he decides to take cognizance of the offence. In the present case, it appears that the learned JMFC, Chandrapur by order dated 25.3.2009 in Complaint Case No. 129/2009 has already taken cognizance of the offences on the basis of complaint, verification of the complainant and the documents submitted as also after hearing learned Advocate for the complainant by passing a reasoned order after satisfaction that there are more and sufficient ground to issue process against accused Nos. 1 to 3 for offence punishable u/s s. 420, 471, 468, 500 read with Section 34 IPC as observed in ruling in K.T. Joseph''s case (supra), it is open for the learned Magistrate to use his discretion to record further sworn statements since he has already decided to take cognizance of the offences.
The contention on behalf of the Respondents 2 and 3 are to the effect that the complainant is a teacher in the Acharya Kripalani Hindi School, Chandrapur and she is interested to save her employment and, therefore, she has denied the fact of her marriage with accused Anant. In other words, it is case of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that in the complaint they are falsely implicated by the complainant. According to them, the learned JMFC abruptly without satisfying himself judiciously, issued the process against Respondents 2 and 3 although marriage between Anant Ghatole and Respondent No. 1 Nirmala Hazara was solemnized under Special Marriage Act, 1954 and a certificate to that effect was issued which can be considered as prima facie evidence. According to Respondents 2 and 3 the complainant''s name also figured in important documents, like passport and that she had recorded her statement before Panvel Police. Therefore, it is submitted that a process ought not to have been issued and the complaint case ought to be quashed. The Respondent no1, however, submitted that the learned Magistrate did consider the averments in the complaint as also sworn statement of the complainant before the learned Magistrate ordered to issue process. It is submitted on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 (original complainant) that there was no illegality or any abuse of the process of law or noncompliance of Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure .while the process was issued. According to Respondent No. 1 the applicant is trying to set up a defence by filing this petition; however good the defence the Petitioner may have, it would be useful for him in the trial, but not for quashing the issuance of process. Further, it is submitted that the Petitioner also had an alternate and efficacious remedy to prefer Revision Application u/s 397 to challenge the legality and correctness of the issuance of process.
Having heard these submissions at the Bar, it is also necessary to refer to the ruling in Satish Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2010 All M R (Cr) 2055. This Court had observed with reference to Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure That amendment effected in the provision in relation to accused persons residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate sufficient enquiry is required to be made by the Magistrate as process cannot be issued in a mechanical manner upon perusal of the complaint and verification statement only. Looking to the avowed object of the amendment this Court had made certain observations so as to record that it is duty of the Court to give full effect to the provisions of law and respect the wisdom of the Legislature behind the amendment. In the facts and circumstances of that case, it was held that the Magistrate had committed error of law to issue process against the accused who were beyond his territorial jurisdiction. The observations would be applicable in the case of complaint which is either false or vexatious and intended only to harass the accused residing beyond its territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate. In the present case, it is no doubt true that the Respondents 2 and 3 who were made accused Nos. 2 and 3 are resident of Daund Tah. Daund Dist. Pune. However, looking into the averments in the complaint, verification, documents sought to be relied upon by the complainant and the order which is impugned herein and also considering the view of the Apex Court tin K.T. Joseph''s case (supra) since the learned Magistrate has already taken cognizance of the offences he shall have discretion to record further sworn statements, if necessary. The legal position may be summarized thus: prima facie the term ""taking cognizance" is not defined in the Code. It indicate the stage when learned Magistrate or the Court concerned apply mind to the contents of the complaint to satisfy himself regarding commission of offences. The cognizance may be taken u/s 190 Code of Criminal Procedure upon complaint of facts constituting offence or offences or on the basis of police report or on the basis of information from any person other than the Police officer or upon his own knowledge. When Magistrate apply his mind at precognizance stage he may order investigation as contemplated u/s 156(3) or apply his mind with a view to proceed further u/s 200 and subsequent sections as contemplated under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The process u/s 204 Code of Criminal Procedure may be issued if there is sufficient ground to proceed further. The Magistrate has to decide whether complaint discloses prima facie case in relation to commission of offence alleged and for that purpose he was required to examine the complainant and witnesses if present. The validity of the complaint may be examined by examining the complainant in the Court, at the time when learned Magistrate take cognizance of offence. The accused has no role to play at the stage of issuing process as he has no right to produce any material. If there are two sets of opinion - one in favour of the complainant and the other in favour of the accused, which opinion will ultimately prevail is essentially a question to be determined by the trial Judge upon considering the evidence adduced by the parties in their entirety. Since the process is issued and accused is required to appear before the Court of learned Magistrate, the principles stated above can be taken care of by the trial Judge in the course of the proceedings. Since it is alleged by Respondents 2 and 3 that a false complaint has been filed by the complainant solely with a view to save her employment as a school teacher and since they are resident of Dound and are required to attend the proceedings in Chandrapur, it is expected that the learned trial Magistrate must expedite the hearing of the case and may consider grant of exemption from personal appearance in the Court by such accused attending the Court from far away places, subject of course to reasonable terms.
With these observations looking into the impugned order along with the copy of the complaint and verification and documents sought to be relied upon, I have not hesitation in holding that no fault can be found with the impugned order of issuance of process. It is expected that learned trial Magistrate shall bear in mind the observations made hereinabove, particularly with reference to K T Joseph''s judgment ( cited supra).
Petition is dismissed accordingly. Rule discharged.