1) Complaint

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, FIRST CLASS,

HINGANGHAT.

Criminal Complaint Case No. ………./2019.

Complainant : --------------------------------------

VERSUS

Accused: --------------------------------------

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION – 138 R/W - SECTION – 142 OF THE

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT.

The complainant named above begs to submit as under –

1) That, the complainant is well acquainted with the accused, who are
residing at Hinganghat. The accused is dealing in the business. That, the
accused was in need of money for his business. He had approached to the
complainant for securing the loan of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Looking to the good
relations and need of the accused, the complainant agreed to pay the amount
of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the accused. The complainant firstly drew a cheque of Rs.
2,00,000/- in the name of the accused on 13/10/2014 bearing cheque No.
88738, drawn on the Wana Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Hinganghat against
the account No. 10682, which is in the name of complainant and his mother-
----------------------. The accused received that cheque from the complainant
and encashed it.

2) Again, the complainant drew another cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the

name of the accused on 18/02/2015 bearing cheque No. 090611, drawn on the
 Wana Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Hinganghat against the account No. 10682,
which is in the name of complainant and his mother. The accused received
that cheque from the complainant and encashed it.

Thus, the total amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- was transferred to the account
of the accused from the account of the complainant. The xerox copy of the
bank account pass book of the complainant in respect of said transactions with
the accused is filed by the separate list.

3) That, thus, the accused is indebted to the complainant for the said loan
amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-, which is legally enforceable debt. The accused has
not repaid the said loan amount to the complainant. The complainant
requested to the accused to make payment of the said loan amount. Hence, the
accused firstly issued a cheque of Rs. 1,62,000/- dated 30/12/2018 in the name
of the complainant for discharging his legal part liability. The said cheque is
bearing cheque No. 044123, drawn on Wana Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd.,
Branch- Hinganghat upon his saving account No. 00101580001238 of that
bank.

4) Again, the accused issued another cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- on dated

08/01/2019 in the name of the complainant for discharging his legal part
liability. The said cheque is bearing cheque No. 044125, drawn on Wana
Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Branch- Hinganghat upon his saving account No.
00101580001238 of that bank.

5) That, the complainant presented the both cheques of the accused for
encashment on 25/03/2019 in the Wana Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Branch-
Hinganghat. But, the said bank returned that cheques with cheque return
memos dated 26/03/2019 to the complainant by quoting reason No. 1 i. e.
 “Funds insufficient”. The complainant received the intimation for return of
the said cheques from the bank for the said reason on 26/03/2019 with a
cheque return memos along with dishonoured cheques.

6) Hence, the complainant issued the notice dated 30/03/2019 against the
accused through Adv. S. N. Dhage, Hinganghat by R. P. A. D. The notice was
received by the accused on 05/04/2019. Thus, the complainant has discharged
its obligation to issue the legal notice to the accused within a month after
dishonoring the cheques in question. In the said notice, the complainant had
requested to the accused to send cheques amount of Rs. 3,62,000/- by Postal
Money Order within 15 days after the service of that notice. The accused
neither acted as per notice nor he replied it. The accused did not pay the
cheques amount to the complainant till today. Hence, the complainant is
constrained to file this complaint against the accused.

7) That, the accused has committed the offence under section – 138 r/w
section – 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in the above facts and
circumstances of the matter. The cause of action for this complaint arose on
21/04/2018, i.e. after 15 days from the day of service of the notice to the
accused. The cause of action arose at Hinganghat, which is within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Hence, this Hon’ble Court is
empowered to try this complaint.

8) That, the cheques in question is for the amount of Rs. 3,62,000/- hence,
the required court fees of Rs. 7400/- is appended with this complaint for the
pecuniary jurisdiction of this court.

9) That, the complainant relies upon the documents filed as per the list.
The complainant craves the leave of this Hon’ble Court to allow him for filing
 any other documents at the time of evidence, if necessary, in the interest of
justice. The complainant may further be allowed to call and examine the
witnesses with necessary documents in support of this complaint.

Prayer: It is therefore prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased -

A. To register this complaint against accused under section – 138 r/w section –
142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the process of summons be
issued against the accused for the said offences.

B. To try this complaint according to law and procedure and to punish the
accused for the commission of the above offences.

C. To award compensation under section – 357 of Cr. P. C. to the complainant

for the amount of Rs. 7,24,000/- towards the amount in cheque and the
damages, payable by the accused.

D. Any other relief fit and proper be given to the complainant.

Hinganghat. ----------------------------------

Date: - / /2019.
Complainant.

Counsel for Complainant.

List of Witnesses :-
1) The complainant himself,.

2) The Manager or any other authorized person of the Wana Nagrik Sahakari
Bank Ltd., Branch- Hinganghat with necessary documents.

3) Any other witnesses with due permission of this Hon’ble Court

 ----------------------------
Complainant
AFFIDAVIT
I, --------------------------, aged about- ---- years, By Occu - -----------, R/o- ---
---------------------------------------------. do hereby take an oath and state on solemn
affirmation that the contents in para 1 to 9 above are true to my own knowledge and
belief. The contents as to facts are narrated by me to my counsel which are true to
the best of my own knowledge.

The contents in para 1 to 9 have been read over and explained to me by my

counsel in Marathi and I admit those to be correct. Hence, I signed this on 26 th day
of April 2019 at Hinganghat.

…………………….
Complainant
CERTIFICATE

I know the deponent/complainant- ------------------------------------, R/o- -------

---------------------------. I read over and explained the contents in para 1 to 9 above
to him in Marathi and he admitted those to be correct before me.

R. S. Dhage, Advocate.
Hinganghat.
 IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, FIRST CLASS,
HINGANGHAT.

Criminal Complaint Case No. ………./2019.

Complainant : -------------------------------------

VERSUS

Accused: ---------------------------------------

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION – 138 R/W - SECTION – 142 OF THE

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT.

Summery of the case

1) Date of the cheques:- 30/12/2018 & 08/01/2019

2) Date of presentation of the cheques:- 25/03/2019,

3) Date of dishonoring the cheques:- 26/03/2019,

4) Date of intimation to the complainant:- 26/03/2019,

5) Date of issuing of notice:- 30/03/2019,

6) Date of service of the notice:- 05/04/2019,

7) Date of cause of action:- 21/04/2019,

8) Date of filing of complaint in the court:- 26/04/2019,

Hinganghat. ………………………

Date: - 26/04/2019. Complainant

Counsel for Complainant.

 2)Complaint

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, FIRST CLASS,

HINGANGHAT.

O. M. C. No. /2021.

Applicant : -----------------------------------

VERSUS

Non-applicants : 1) --------------------------------------
2) -----------------------------------------

Application u/s 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for seeking
direction to the P. S. O. Hinganghat for registering and investigating the offence
punishable under sections 420, 406, 506 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code
against the non-applicants.

The applicant named above, begs to submit as under –

1) That, the applicant is residing at village-Shegaon (Kund), Tah-

Hinganghat, Dist- Wardha. He is an agriculturist. He is having the field S. No.
158/2, area 1 H. 68 R., Land revenue 2.70, Rights- Class-I situated at mouza-
Shegaon (Kund) in Tah- Hinganghat, Dist- Wardha. The livelihood of the
applicant and his family members is fully depending upon the income of the
said field only. He along with his son is personally cultivating the said field
and it is in his possession being the owner thereof.
2) That, the non-applicants No. 1 and 2 is having the cloths shop in
Hinganghat Main Market under the name and style of "Janta Cloths Stores."
The applicant came in acquaintance with them before about 10 to 12 years
 back on account of said cloths shop. The non-applicants are doing money
lending business without licence. They used to pay some amount as hand loan
for the purpose of cultivation of the aforesaid field, charging monthly interest
@ 3 %. The applicant used to repay such amount of hand loan with interest
after harvesting the crops from his aforesaid field. Not only this, the applicant
many times gave the cotton which was collected from his aforesaid field for
sale in Hinganghat APMC in the name of the non-applicants and they
recovered the outstanding loan amount which was against the applicant. That
thus, the applicant has nothing to pay to the non-applicants and he is not
indebted to them.
3) That, in the year 2020, the non-applicant No. 2 called the applicant in
his shop and threatened him to pay the Rs. 22,00,000/- towards interest, saying
that he has to recover the amount of interest of Rs. 22,00,000/- from the
applicant. The applicant is very simple nature person. He is educated up to
Marathi 2nd standard. He cannot read and write properly. He can only make
his signature.
4) That on 17/07/2020, both the non-applicants took the applicant with
them under coercion and threats to the Tahsil Kacheri, Hinganghat. They
forcibly got his signatures over some papers, which were already written.
Nobody read over and explained the contents therein to the applicant. The
applicant had to put his signatures thereon under duress and threats of the non-
applicant on that day. The non-applicants did not pay any amount in cash or
by cheques to the applicant towards the alleged sale consideration of his field
on 17/07/2020. Even, there was no discussion and negotiation in between the
applicant and non-applicants as to the sale transaction as regards the
applicant's field property at any time.
5) That, in the summer of this current year of 2021, the applicant had been
to get 7/12 extract of his aforesaid field from the concerned Talathi of mouza-
Shegaon (Kund). At that time, the Talathi told the applicant that one Akash
Motwani (Non-applicant No. 1) submitted the application for mutation on the
basis of the sale deed of the aforesaid field of the applicant. The applicant
shocked upon hearing that news. The applicant as well as his son submitted
objections in writing with the concerned Talathi against the intending
mutation.
6) Thereafter, the applicant filed an application in the office of Sub-
Registrar, Hinganghat on 14/06/2021 for getting certified copy of the alleged
sale deed dated 17/07/2020. Thereupon, the applicant received the certified
copy of the sale deed dated 17/07/2020 in respect of the aforesaid field
property of the applicant, which is shown to be in favour of the non-applicant
No. 1 allegedly executed by the applicant. In fact, the applicant did not execute
and register any sale deed of his field in favour of the non-applicant No. 1 and
he did not receive any amount of consideration from him.
7) It is submitted that from the perusal of the certified copy of the sale
deed, it is falsely mentioned therein that the non-applicant No. 1 gave
following 7 cheques to the applicant, each for Rs. 1,00,000/- towards amount
of consideration of Rs. 7,00,000/-.
Description of the cheques mentioned in the sale deed dated 17/07/2020:-
Rs. 1,00,000/- Cheque No. 790755, dated 29/06/2018, drawn on Punjab
National Bank, Branch- Hinganghat.
Rs. 1,00,000/- Cheque No. 790756, dated 02/07/2018, drawn on Punjab
National Bank, Branch- Hinganghat.
Rs. 1,00,000/- Cheque No. 790757, dated 04/07/2018, drawn on Punjab
National Bank, Branch- Hinganghat.
 Rs. 1,00,000/- Cheque No. 790758, dated 06/07/2018, drawn on Punjab
National Bank, Branch- Hinganghat.
Rs. 1,00,000/- Cheque No. 790759, dated 08/07/2018, drawn on Punjab
National Bank, Branch- Hinganghat.
Rs. 1,00,000/- Cheque No. 872328, dated 21/07/2020, drawn on Punjab
National Bank, Branch- Hinganghat.
Rs. 1,00,000/- Cheque No. 872329, dated 28/07/2020, drawn on Punjab
National Bank, Branch- Hinganghat.
8) It is submitted that the non-applicants never gave any of the aforesaid
cheques to the applicant and the applicant did not in cash them and he did not
receive any amount from the non-applicants towards the sale consideration of
the aforesaid field property till today. The non-applicant No. 1 is the son of
the non-applicant No. 2. They have got common business of cloths shop. They
are residing together. Both of them acted in furtherance of their common
intention dishonestly to get wrongful gain and to grab applicant's aforesaid
field property without paying any amount of consideration. Thus, they have
intentionally cheated the applicant and also did breach of trust. More so, the
market value of the aforesaid field was/is about Rs. 30,00,000/-. Thus, the
non-applicants are trying to grab the aforesaid field property of the applicant
without paying any amount of consideration to the applicant. The applicant is
in physical and legal possession of the aforesaid field property. He never
handed over the possession of the said field to non-applicants. That thus, both
of them have committed offences under sections 406, 420, 506 r/w section 34
of Indian Penal Code.
9) The applicant sent a request letter dated 12/07/2021 through his counsel
S. N. Dhage, Hinganghat to the Bank Manager, Punjab National Bank,
Branch- Hinganghat by RPAD, requesting him to give necessary information
 as to the aforesaid 7 cheques as to whether they are encashed or not, if they
are encashed, who did so and to whom the amount in cheques have been paid.
The Bank Branch Manager received the aforesaid letter of the applicant on
13/07/2021, but he did not supply any information. He sent reply letter dated
13/07/2021, informing to counsel of the applicant that the bank shall not be
able to share information related to it as it will be treated as third party
information and we are bound to not to share information unless it is directed
by the Hon’ble Court or Government Statutory bodies.
10) That hence, the applicant constrained to lodge the written report dated
21/07/2021 to the Police station Officer, Hinganghat against the non-
applicants along with the copy of the alleged sale deed dated 17/07/2020 and
he thereby requested to police for registering and investigating the offences
committed by the non-applicant. The P. S. Hinganghat took the entry of
applicant's said report in Station Diary entry No. 14/2021 at 11.11 a.m. on
22/07/2021. The applicant also sent the copy of the said report to the
Superintendent of Police, Wardha by R.P.A.D.
But, the police did not register the offences against the non-applicants
till today although they have committed the cognizable offences. Police did
not investigate the matter properly. The police only recorded the oral
statement of the applicant. But, thereafter, the police said to the applicant to
approach in the court for justice and they have no power to take any action
against the non-applicants. Hence, the applicant is constrained to present this
application.

Prayer: It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue direction under section 156 (3) of Cr. P. C. thereby directing the P. S. O.,
 Hinganghat for registering and investigating an offence punishable under
sections 420, 406, 506 r/w section 34 of I.P.C. against the non-applicants.

Any other relief fit and proper be given to the applicant.

Hinganghat. ………………………

Date: - 21/08/2021 Applicant

Counsel for applicant

AFFIDAVIT

I, ------------------------------------, Aged about– 58 years, By occu.– Cultivator,

R/o- Shegaon (Kund), Tah.- Hinganghat, Dist.- Wardha do hereby take an oath and
state on solemn affirmation that the contents in para 1 to 10 above are true to my
own knowledge and belief. The contents as to facts are narrated by me to my counsel,
which are true to the best of my own knowledge.

The contents in para 1 to 10 have been read over and explained to me by my

counsel in Marathi and I admit those to be correct. Hence, I signed this on 21st day
of August 2021 at Hinganghat.

…………………….

Applicant
CERTIFICATE

I, know the deponent/applicant- -------------------------------- R/o- Shegaon

(Kund), Tah.- Hinganghat, Dist.- Wardha. I read over and explained the contents in
para 1 to 10 above to him in Marathi and he admitted those to be correct before me.

Advocate.Hinganghat.
 Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

3) Sec 125 Crpc OR PWDVA Application

4) Interim Maintenance Application

 Bail Application

5) Bail application under Sec 436 of CrPC

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST

CLASS, WARDHA.
Crime No. 881/2023 P. F. /0 /202
State of Maharashtra through P. S. Wardha.
-Vs-
(Name of Accused)
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION– 436 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, 1973 FOR GRANT OF BAIL TO THE ACCUSED

The accused begs to submit as under:

1) The accused is arrested by the Police for the offence under Sec 325 of Indian
Penal Code and produced before this Hon’ble Court today.

2) The accused is the permanent resident of Wardha. The accused has not committed
any offence as alleged and the said offence is bailable.

3) The accused is ready to furnish the bail with one solvent surety for his regular
appearance before this Hon’ble Court.

Prayer : - It is most respectfully prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to release the accused on bail in the interest of justice.

Wardha. -----------------------------

Date : /0 /202 ( Signature of Accused )

--------------------------------
(Signature of Counsel of Accused)
 6) Bail Appication under Sec 437 of CrPC

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST

CLASS, WARDHA.
Crime No. 22/2024 P. F. /0 /202

State of Maharashtra through P. S. Wardha.

-Vs-
(Name of Accused)

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION– 437 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE, 1973 FOR GRANT OF BAIL TO THE ACCUSED

The accused begs to submit as under:

1) The accused is arrested by the Police for the offence under Sec 420, 468 of Indian
Penal Code and produced before this Hon’ble Court today.

2) That, the accused is the permanent resident of Wardha. He has good family
background. The accused is law abiding & peace loving citizen of India. He is never
convicted in any criminal case nor he has any criminal antecedent. The accused is
considered as respectable and law abiding citizen in Wardha. He is having deep roots
in society. He deals in the business of property as dealer.

3) That, the Accused is an innocent person. He did not commit any offence as alleged
by the complainant. Due to business rivalry of property dealers with the accused, the
complainant has been instigated by them to file the false report against the accused.

4) The accused is a peace loving and law abiding citizen, residing in Wardha. The
accused is falsely implicated in the aforesaid crime on the false and afterthought
belated report. If the accused is kept behind the bar on false and fabricated grounds,
the entire family of applicant would come in danger.
5) The accused is ready to furnish his solvent surety for releasing him on bail as may

be ordered by this Hon’ble Court. He is also ready to abide by all terms and

conditions which may be imposed upon him while granting the bail. He assures that

he will not tamper or hamper the prosecution evidence and the progress in

investigation. He undertakes to remain present in the Court regularly. He is also

ready to remain present before the investigating agency if required for further

investigation.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, it is necessary to release the

accused on bail in the interest of justice. Hence, this application.

Prayer : - It is most respectfully prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to release the accused on bail in the interest of justice.

Any other relief fit and proper be given to the accused.

Wardha. -----------------------------

Date : /0 /202 ( Signature of Accused )

--------------------------------
(Signature of Counsel of Accused)
 7) Bail Appication under Sec 438 of CrPC (Anticipatory Bail)

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

HINGANGHAT.
Sessions Cri. Bail Appl. No. /2024 Presented on- 06/02/2024

Applicants:- 1)
Aged about 37 years, By occu.- Property dealer,
R/o-

2)
3)
4)
-Vs-
Non-applicant:- State of Maharashtra through
Police Station Officer, Samudrapur, Dist- Wardha

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION– 438 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE, 1973 FOR GRANT OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE
APPLICANTS IN CRIME NO. 0089/2024 REGISTERED IN P. S.
SAMUDRAPUR FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 326, 324, 143, 147, 148, 149 OF
I.P.C.

The applicants, the undersigned, beg to submit as under:–

1) That, the applicant No. 1 to 4 are permanently residing at above

addresses. All the applicants have good family backgrounds and their family
members are depending upon them. The applicants are law abiding & peace
 loving citizens of India. They are also political and social workers and having
good reputation and respect in the society. They are never convicted in any
criminal case. The applicant No. 1 is the property dealer and an agriculturist
and he maintains his family from his earnings. The applicant No. 2 and 3 are
the agriculturists and doing business. The applicant No. 4 is the property
dealer. All the applicants are maintaining their families from their earnings.

2) That, the applicants are the innocent persons. They did not commit any
offence. As per the contentions made in the FIR, it is alleged that one Manish
s/o Shantilal Gandhi, r/o- Samudrapur (complainant) lodged the report dated
03/02/2024 in the Police Station, Samudrapur, alleging that he reached in front
of Vidya Vikas College where Atul Chaudhari, Sumot Rangari, Ranjit
Chaware and Vaibhav Mendhule were present. They asked him about the
selection/appointment of Taluka President Post. Hence, he talked on phone
with the District President of Rashtrawadi Party (Sunil Raut) and asked him
about the same. Thereafter, the applicant No. 1, the State General Secretary
of Rashtrawadi Party talked on phone with him and thereafter at about 8.45
p.m., applicant No. 1 to 4 and other 2 unknown persons came there and beat
him with iron rod. He sustained injury to his head. The applicant No. 2 and 3
also beat him. He lodged the report to police station. He had gone to medical
treatment to P.H.C., Samudrapur and Then P. S. O., Samudrapur registered
the offence u/s section 324, 143, 147, 148, 149 of I. P. C. bearing Crime No.
0089/2024 on 04/02/2024 at 2.11 a.m. against the applicants/accused.
However, again upon the oral order of Sub-Divisional Police Officer,
Hinganghat, the P. S. O., Samudrapur added the offence u/s 326 of I. P. C. on
05/02/2024 at 19.04, as per station dairy entry No. 18 in the aforesaid crime
No. 89/2024 against the applicants.
3) It is submitted that prima facie there is no involvement of these
applicants/accused in the commission of the above offences. In spite of it,
due to political rivalries and group-ism in the Rashtrawadi Congress party in
Hinganghat and Samudrapur Tahsil, the complainant filed the false complaint
against the applicants/accused as alleged in the FIR which is registered by the
Police Station Officer, Samudrapur vide Crime No. 0089/2024 and adding
further offence therein u/s 326 of I. P. C. later on.

4) The applicants came to know from the news published in the daily
newspaper "Lokmat" on dated 05/02/2024 very recently that, the offence is
registered against them as per above crime upon the false report of aforesaid
Manish Gandhi. The copy of the FIR of Crime No. 0089/2024 is filed herewith
by separate list along station diary entry No. 18, dated 05/02/2024.

5) The opposite group in Rashtrawadi Congress Party (Sharad Pawar

group) headed by Ex. M. L. A. and his others associates are against the
applicants and they are bent upon to get arrested the applicants in the above
crime. Since, the offence earlier registered in F.I.R. No. 89/2024 was initially
u/s 324, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of I. P. C., the police did not arrest the
applicants being bailable offences. However, the complainant and his other
associates are bent upon to get arrested the applicants by hook or crook to
maline their prestige in the eyes of society at large and therefore, they
managed to get added the offence u/s 326 of I. P. C. in addition to aforesaid
bailable offences later on in crime No. 89/2024 as explained above.

6) That, the applicants are innocent persons. They are ready to co-operate
to the police machinery in the investigation of the crime and they are ready to
appear before the police if their presence is required for the same. The
 applicants are very simple persons. There is reasonable apprehension in their
mind that, if they are arrested without any fault on their part, they would suffer
irreparable loss and their reputation in the community and public in general
would be spoiled. Therefore, they are approaching to this Hon’ble Court to
get protection from their arrest and to direct the Police Station Officer,
Samudrapur for releasing them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest.

7) The applicants are having firm roots in the soil of Hinganghat and
Samudrapur, Dist- Wardha. Hence, the presence of applicants for the purpose
of investigation, if any, can be secured very well by the police. The applicants
are ready to abide by terms and conditions as would be imposed upon them
by this Hon’ble Court. They will not misuse the liberty granted to them. In the
light of the above facts and circumstances, this is a fit case wherein discretion
for grant of an anticipatory bail may be used in their favour. Hence, this
application.

Prayer : - It is most respectfully prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to issue directions to PSO, Samudrapur to release the applicants on bail, in the
event of their arrest for the alleged offences u/s 326, 324 143, 147, 148 and
149 of I.P.C. which is registered vide Crime No. 89/2024 against the
applicants and may further be pleased to release the applicants on ad-interim
anticipatory bail pending the decision of main application.

Any other relief fit and proper be given to the applicants.

1) Hinganghat. -----------------------------

2) Date : 06/02/2024 -----------------------------

3) Counsel for applicants -----------------------------

4) -----------------------------

5) Applicants

6) Note: No any other bail application is filed by the applicants and it is not pending
before any court in India, except the instant one.

AFFIDAVIT
I, , Aged about 37 years, By occu.- Property dealer,
R/o- Sant Tukdoji Ward, Near Sai Mandir, Nandori Road, Tah.- Hinganghat, Tah.-
Hinganghat, Dist- Wardha do hereby take an oath and state on solemn affirmation
that, the contents in para No. 1 to 7 above are true to my own knowledge and belief.
The said contents have been written by my counsel as per my narration and he
explained them to me in vernacular, which I found to be true and correct. Hence, I
signed on this 06th day of February 2024 at Hinganghat.
-------------------------------

Applicant No. 1
7)
8) CERTIFICATE
I, know the applicant No. 1/deponent- R/o- Sant Tukdoji Ward,
Near Sai Mandir, Nandori Road, Tah.- Hinganghat, Tah.- Hinganghat, Dist-
Wardha. I explained the contents in para No. 1 to 7 above to him in Marathi and he
admitted those to be correct before me.

Advocate, Hinganghat.
 8) Bail Application under sec 439 of CrPC

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

HINGANGHAT.
Cri. Bail Appl. No. /2023 Presented on- 01/08/2023
(Crime No. 881/2023)
(Police Station, Hinganghat, Dist.- Wardha)
U/s 376, 452, 501, 506 of I. P. C.

Applicant:- -----------------------------------------
-Vs-
Non-applicant:- State of Maharashtra through
Police Station Officer, Hinganghat

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION– 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE, 1973 FOR GRANT OF BAIL TO THE
APPLICANT/ACCUSED IN CRIME NO. 881/2023 OF P. S. HINGANGHAT.

On behalf of the applicant/accused, the undersigned, begs to submit as under:–

1) That, the applicant is the permanent resident of Hinganghat town in

Dist- Wardha. He has good family background. The applicant is law abiding
& peace loving citizen of India. He is never convicted in any criminal case
nor he has any criminal antecedent. The applicant is considered as respectable
and law abiding citizen in Hinganghat town. He is having deep roots in
society. He deals in the business of property dealing as an agent.

2) That, the applicant is an innocent person. He did not commit any

offence as alleged by the complainant- Sau. Savita Gajanan Chaudhari. Due
 to business rivalry of property dealers with the accused, the complainant has
been instigated by them to file the false report against the accused on
26/07/2023. No incident occurred on 08/02/2023 as alleged in the report
lodged by the complainant. The complainant has lodged afterthought and false
report on 26/07/2023 as to the alleged false incident dated 08/02/2023, which
is belated and no reasonable explanation is given by her for lodging such type
of report against the accused after the period of 5 months 18 days, after the
alleged incident.

3) The complainant was residing in the house of the accused on rent since
March 2021 to 30/05/2023. But, she did not pay any heed to pay the monthly
agreed rent to the applicant. The applicant many times asked to pay the rent
amount. But the complainant failed to pay the rent. The applicant therefore
asked the complainant to leave his occupied let out premises. By hook and
crook, she vacated the let out premises on 30/05/2023 without paying the
arrears of rent to the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant/accused was
requesting to pay the arrears of rent w.e.f. March 2021 to May 2023. But, she
avoided on one pretext or another. When the accused was earnestly
demanding the amount of the arrears of rent against her, she joined the hand
with the rivals of the applicant/accused in the business of property dealings
and at their instigation, she lodged the false report against the
applicant/accused. Thus, the accused is implicated in false case, although, he
is an innocent person.

4) The applicant/accused is aged about 60 years, who have serious

problems of piles and fishers. He is also having the problem of leg paralysis.
That thus, the accused requires medical treatment regularly.
5) That, accused/applicant was called by the police on the day of lodging
of the alleged report by the complainant. He immediately surrendered himself
to the Police Station, Hinganghat on 26/07/2023. The Police has shown his
arrest on 27/07/2023 at 00.46 a.m. and produced him on 27/07/2023 before
Hon'ble Court of J. M. F. C., Hinganghat and sought P. C. R. till 28/07/2023.
Thereafter, he was produced by the Police before the Hon'ble Court of J. M.
F. C. on 28/07/2023 seeking M.C.R. The Hon'ble Court of J.M.F.C.,
Hinganghat took the accused under M. C. R. on 28/07/2023 and he is sent to
Wardha Jail till 10/08/2023. That thus, the applicant/accused is presently in
Wardha Jail.

6) The applicant has co-operated to the police machinery in the

investigation of the crime during the period of P. C. R. He is also ready to
appear before the police, if his presence is required for the same. Almost entire
investigation pertaining to the crime is over.

7) The applicant is a peace loving and law abiding citizen, residing in

Hinganghat town. The applicant/accused is falsely implicated in the aforesaid
crime on the false and afterthought belated report. If the applicant is kept
behind the bar on false and fabricated grounds, the entire family of applicant
would come in danger.

8) The applicant is ready to furnish his solvent surety for releasing him on
bail as may be ordered by this Hon’ble Court. He is also ready to abide by all
terms and conditions which may be imposed upon him while granting the bail.
He assures that he will not tamper or hamper the prosecution evidence and the
progress in investigation. He undertakes to remain present in the Court
 regularly. He is also ready to remain present before the investigating agency
if required for further investigation.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, it is necessary to release

the applicant/accused on bail in the interest of justice. Hence, this application.

Prayer : - It is most respectfully prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to release the applicant/accused on bail in the interest of justice.

Any other relief fit and proper be given to the applicant/accused.

9) Hinganghat. -----------------

------------

10) Date : 01/08/2023 Counsel for applicant

Note: No any other bail application is filed by the applicant and it is not pending
before any Court in India, except the instant one.
 9) Memorandom of appeal

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS

JUDGE, HINGANGHAT.

Reg. Cri. Appeal No. /2021

Appellant: -----------------------------,
(Accused)
-Versus-

Respondent : State of Maharashtra, through Police Station,

(Complainant) Hinganghat, Dist.- Wardha.

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) (a) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE, 1973 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08/07/2021, PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF J.M.F.C., HINGANGHAT IN REG. CRI. CASE
NO. 231/2015, State of Maharashtra -Vs- ----------------------.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the J.M.F.C.,

Hinganghat in Reg. Cri. Case No. 231/2015, State of Maharashtra -Vs- --------------
, delivered on 08/07/2021, the appellant/accused prefers to this appeal on the
following facts and grounds amongst others:-
-:Facts of the appeal:-
1) That, upon the report of the complainant- Jyoti Santosh Bhute, R/o
Wagholi, the P. S. O., Hinganghat had registered the offence against the
appellant/accused for the commission of the offence under Section 354 (1)
and (2) of I.P.C. vide FIR No. 227/2015 on dated 09/09/2015 regarding the
alleged incident dated 09/09/2015 allegedly occurred at about 2.00 p. m. in
 the field of her brother in Wagholi Shiwar. The Investigating Officer- Shri.
Rajendra Jangitwar, ASI, investigated the crime and after investigation, he
filed charge sheet against the accused/appellant in the Hon’ble Court of J. M.
F. C. Hinganghat for the offence under section 354 (A) 1 (i) (ii), 2 of I.P.C.
on 06/11/2015. Hence, the Hon’ble Court of J. M. F. C., Hinganghat registered
Reg. Cri. Case No. 231/2015, State-Vs----------------------- and proceeded
against the accused.
2) The case was tried by the Hon’ble Court of J.M.F.C., Hinganghat by
framing the charge under Section 354 of I.P.C. at Exh. 2. The accused did not
plead guilty. After evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the
accused u/s 313 of Cr. P. C. was recorded. The written notes on argument
were filed on behalf of the accused on 19/04/2021 in the trial Court. The
Hon’ble Trial Court delivered the judgment on dated 08/07/2021, whereby the
accused is convicted for the commission of the offence u/s 354 of I.P.C. The
accused is sentenced to suffer the rigorous imprisonment for one year and to
pay the fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to pay the fine amount, he shall suffer
20 days rigorous imprisonment.
3) That, the accused has remitted the fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- in the
Lower Court vide F. R. No. 338/2021 on 08/07/2021 and filed the application
for suspension of the sentence at Exh. 31. The Hon’ble Lower Court allowed
the application and suspended the sentence on furnishing P. B. and S. B. in
the sum of Rs. 15,000/- for a period of six months to obtain the order of the
Hon’ble Appellate Court. The certified copies of the judgment, the order of
suspension of sentence, the copy of the fine receipt and the bail papers are
filed with separate list of documents herewith.
 Hence, being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment awarding sentence
and fine to the appellant/accused, he prefers to this appeal within a period of
limitation before this Hon’ble Court on the following grounds.
Grounds of appeal
1) That, the learned Lower Court has failed to appreciate and to scan the
evidence on record by applying proper mind.
2) That, the learned Lower Court has failed to discuss some of the
important points of argument advanced on behalf of the accused.
3) That, learned Lower Court has relied upon the testimony of the
complainant without making proper discussion of the material three
contradictions and omissions, which are brought on record in the evidence of
the informant, which are proved from the investigating officer- P. W. 5 by the
defence.
4) The learned Lower Court has failed to consider the previous enmity in
between the family of the complainant and the accused and the pending
criminal case against the brother of the complainant upon lodging the report
by the accused/appellant for the commission of offence u/s 326 of I.P.C.
regarding the occurrence of the incident 09/09/2015 itself.
5) The learned Lower Court has also failed to consider the fact as to the
detail contents of the spot Panchnama and the evidence of P. W. 3 and 4 led
by the prosecution thereon in the proper manner.
6) The testimony of P. W. 1- Jyoti is not fully reliable in view of the
contradictions, omissions and manner of her narration as to the alleged
incident to the police and in her deposition before Lower Court. Hence, her
evidence is not reliable, believable and trustworthy. But, the Lower Court
made the general statement in the judgment to the effect that minor
discrepancies or some improvement could not justify rejecting the testimony
 of eye witness and some discrepancy are bound to occur because of
sociological background of witness. In the present case, the sociological
background of witness has not been brought on record by the prosecution.
7) That, the learned Lower Court has made bold statement in the judgment
that the testimony of informant was not shattered during her cross
examination, although, her testimony is materially shattered in the cross
examination. The informant states before the police while lodging report and
recording statement that she knows the accused since she was taking
education (Portion mark-A), but before the court she flatly deposed on oath
that she was not knowing to the accused prior to the incident and she was not
knowing him while taking her education.
8) So also, the informant deposed before the court that the incident
occurred in the first row of the crop. It did not happen that the incident
occurred in the last row of the crop. She denies the suggestion that she had
shown the spot of incident to the police. Whereas, in the spot Panchnama Exh.
12 prepared by I. O. (P. W. 5) specifically makes mention that the
complainant- Sau. Jyoti Santosh Bhute, R/o- Inzala had shown the spot of
incident in the presence of Panchas. In the spot Panchnama Exh. 12, the place
of incident is shown to be the last row of the cotton crops in the field and the
pieces of bangles were found there and they were taken in possession for the
purpose of evidence in the presence of Panchas. The informant does not speak
anything regarding the same in her deposition.
It is pertinent to note that the alleged pieces of glass bangles were not
brought in the court by the prosecution and they are not shown to the
informant or to her mother at the time of recording their evidence. The learned
Lower Court did not pay any heed towards the said important lacuna in the
case of the prosecution.
9) It is the fact that the P. W. 3-Diwakar Bawane and Pravin Sopan Thool
are the witness on spot Panchnama at Exh. 12. P. W. 3 deposed that he was
not present in any inquiry done by the police and the signature on the spot
Panchnama is not his signature. In the cross examination by the prosecution,
P. W. 3 denies to the suggestion of the APP to the effect that he was making
signature in the year 2015.
P. W. 4- Pravin Sopan Thool also deposed that he was not present at
the time of preparing Panchnama. No spot Panchnama was prepared in his
presence. In his cross examination, he admitted that he had signed on the spot
Panchnama on road and the contents of the spot Panchnama were not read
over to him and he had not read the same.
Thus, the contents of the spot Panchnama Exh. 12 as well as the seizure
of pieces of glass bangles are not proved by the prosecution at all. In spite of
it, the learned Lower Court did not pay proper heed to the aforesaid deposition
of P. W. 3 and P. W. 4, although, the place of alleged incident has been
differed through the mouth of informant in her deposition.
10) The appellant/accused filed on record the certified copy of the Reg. Cri.
Case No. 232/2015, State-Vs- Raju Bhat at Exh. 21. The crime u/s 326 and
504 of I.P.C. was registered by the P. S. Hinganghat against the brother of the
informant- Raju Bhat upon the report of the accused regarding the incident
dated 09/09/2015 and the charge sheet is filed by the same investigating
officer (P. W. 5) against him in the court of J. M. F.C., Hinganghat, which is
still pending.
The P. W. 5 admitted the above fact in his cross examination before the
Trial Court that he is the investigating officer of Crime No. 226/2015 in the
above criminal case. The learned Lower Court has failed to appreciate this
important piece of evidence on record.
11) It is also the fact that the brother of the informant-Raju Bhat is the cited
witness in the case. He was called for evidence in the Lower Court by issuing
summons, but he had not appeared upon service of summons. Then the Lower
Court issued the bailable warrant against him. Hence, he appeared before the
Lower Court on 01/07/2019 for evidence, but the APP for the state informed
to the Court that he does not want to examine him and got him discharged
without recording his evidence. The said witness was the ocular and material
witness to the alleged incident. He was master mind behind the entire episode.
The suggestions to that effect were given to the P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 in the
cross examination. Raju Bhat is facing the criminal trail u/s 326 and 504 of
I.P.C. upon the report lodged by the accused. His statement was also recorded
by the police in the investigation.
In spite of above facts and circumstances, his evidence is not taken on
record by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. Hence, there are
reasonable grounds to draw the adverse inference u/s 114 of Evidence Act
against the prosecution for not examining Raju Bhat. The learned Lower
Court did not pay any heed in its judgment on this point although, the defence
has raised this point in the notes of argument.
12) P. W. 1- Jyoti and P. W. 2- Baby are blood related witnesses being a
daughter and a mother in relation. Hence, great caution was to be taken while
believing their evidence by the Lower Court. There are material variances,
contradictions and omissions in their evidence. They are differing regarding
the place of incident as well as the place of their actual working in the field at
the time of alleged incident. The learned Lower Court failed to appreciate and
scan their evidence by applying proper mind.
13) P. W. 6 -Dr. Priti Paradkar has given admission in her cross
examination as to the age and duration of the alleged injuries mentioned in
 Exh. 23 as she has admitted that there is no specific parameter to decide age
of injury and it may be possible that injury No. 1 to 3 may be caused within
one hour. It is pertinent to note that the injury certificate at Exh. 23 appear to
have been issued on 09/09/2015 at 3.50 p.m. But, it is pertinent to note that
the informant- P. W. 1 did not state in her evidence that she had been to the
government hospital and she was examined by the doctor on 09/09/2015. That
thus, the evidence of P. W. 4 is not corroborated by the informant P. W. 1 on
the point of her medical examination. Hence, the evidence of P. W. 6- Dr. Priti
Paradkar is also not at all helpful to the prosecution. But, the learned Lower
Court did not pay any heed to the said fact on record.
14) Thus, from the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record,
there are reasonable doubts in the happening of the alleged incident. The
accused has explained the true and correct facts for implicating him in the
false case in his defence as well as in his statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. He filed
the certified copy of charge sheet of the criminal case No. 232/2015, State-vs-
Raju Bhat at Exh. 21. It is the defence of the accused that he is innocent and
did not commit any offence. On the other hand, the brother of the informant
was very much annoyed upon the accused as to his talking terms with the
informant. He was severely beaten by the spade on 09/09/2015 by him for
which the aforesaid criminal case is pending for the offence of section 326
and 504 of I.P.C. against him. It is the said Raju Bhat who made plan to get
implicated the accused by lodging the false report against him through his
sister/informant, so that, he would be able to save himself from the aforesaid
criminal case. The defence taken by the accused is not only probable, it is
reasonable and supported by the important piece of document on record. But
the Lower Court did not pay heed to the same in the judgment and wrongly
held the accused guilty.
15) When the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond all reasonable doubts and the defence taken by the accused is probable
and reasonable, the judgment of the Lower Court needs interference by this
Hon’ble Court and it is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice, acquitting
the accused.
Prayer:- It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to-
A) Register this appeal against the judgment dated 08/07/2021 passed in Reg.
Cri. Case No. 231/2015, State of Maharashtra -Vs- ------------------- by the
Court of J.M.F.C., Hinganghat.
B) Call the original case record of the Reg. Cri. Case No. 231/2015, State of
Maharashtra -Vs- ----------------------- from the Lower Court.
C) Hear the appeal, set aside the judgment of the aforesaid Lower Court and
to acquit the accused from the offence of Section 354 of I. P. C.
D) Any other relief fit and proper may be given to accused/appellant in the
ends of justice.
Hinganghat ------------------------

Dated: 20/07/2021 Appellant/accused

Counsel for the accused

Note: The appeal is filed today on 20/07/2021 against the judgment dated
08/07/2021 passed by the Lower Court. Hence, the appeal is within a period of
limitation.
 10) Revision

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS

JUDGE, HINGANGHAT.
Cri. Revision No. /2023
Applicants: 1) -------------------------------
2) ----------------------------------
-Versus-
Non-applicant : --------------------------------------
REVISION U/S 397 R/W SEC. 399 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, 1973 AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED ON 23/12/2021 &
04/11/2022, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF J.M.F.C.,
HINGANGHAT IN REG. CRI. CASE NO. 90/2022 (OLD MISC. CRI. APPLI.
NO. 380/2020), ------------------- -VS- STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND
OTHERS, WHICH CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE APPLICANTS
ON 11/08/2023.
Being aggrieved by the orders dated 23/12/2021 for rejecting the application
filed u/s 156 (3) of Cr. P. C. and for registration of the criminal complaint case in O.
M. C. No. 380/2020 and further order dated 04/11/2022 for issuing the process of
summons against the applicants/accused No. 2 and 3 in R. C. C. No. 90/2022, ------
----- -Vs- State of Maharashtra and 4 others for the offences punishable u/s 420 r/w
section 34 of I. P. C. passed at Exh. 1 by the Court of J. M. F. C., Hinganghat, the
applicants/accused No. 2 and 3 prefer to this revision on the following facts and
grounds amongst others:-
-:Facts:-
1) That, it is submitted that the applicants had purchased a plot from one-
Manohar Daulatrao Kharankar as per the registered sale deed dated
24/06/2008. Thereafter, the said plot was purchased by the non-applicant from
the applicants as per the registered sale deed dated 11/11/2010. That on
05/03/2020, the Authorized Officer, Assets Reconstruction Company (India)
Ltd. published notice in daily news paper Loksatta under the Securitization
and Reconstruction of Assets and Enforcement of Interest Act, 2002 for
auction sale to be held on 23/03/2020 in respect of various plots which were
mortgaged to the ICICI Bank, wherein the plot purchased by this non-
applicant was also mentioned. From the said notice, it came to know first time
to the applicants, the plot purchased by them from Manohar Kharankar was
already mortgaged by him and his wife.
2) After the publication of aforesaid public notice, the applicants lodged
the written report to the Police Station, Hinganghat on 16/03/2020 against
aforesaid Manohar Daulatrao Kharankar. It also appears that on the same day,
the non-applicant lodged the report to the Police Station, Hinganghat against
these applicants. However after enquiry, the police issued to notice/letter
dated 08/08/2020 to the applicants stating that the matter being in respect of
the plot and in civil nature, the applicants should approach to the proper court.
3) The applicants had also issue the notice dated 21/03/2020 by R.P.A.D.
to the predecessor in title of the plot viz. Manohar Daulatrao Kharankar
through their advocate. The copies of the said notice were also sent to the non-
applicant- Sarla, to P. S. O., Hinganghat and to the Manager, ICICI Bank,
Wardha and Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., Mumbai. The said
notice and its copies were already received by the concerned addressees.
4) It appears that the non-applicant- Smt. Sarla Dilip Dakhore filed the
complaint dated 27/10/2020, u/s 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C. against the state of
 Maharashtra through officer in charge of Police Station, Hinganghat and 4
others, for directing the police official of P. S. Hinganghat to register offence
under relevant section of I.P.C. and direct to investigate the matter or in
alternative to take the cognizance of the offences punishable u/s 406, 420, 34
of I.P.C. and all such offences as may be made out against the non-applicant
No. 2 and 5, in the Hon'ble Court of J. M. F. C., Hinganghat, wherein, the
non-applicants are shown as under-
i) The State of Maharashtra through Officer In charge of Police Station,
Hinganghat,
ii) Vijay Ankush Karamore,
iii) Yogesh Pundlik Vairagade,
iv) Manohar Daulatramji Kharankar,
v) Sau. Sumha Manohar Kharankar,
5) It further appears that the aforesaid complaint filed by the present non-
applicant-Sarla was registered as O. M. C. No. 380/2020 on 27/10/2020 and
it was put pending for long period before the Hon'ble Court of J.M. F. C.
Hinganghat. However, on 23/12/2021, the said Court passed the order below
Exh. 1 of said O. M. C. No. 380/2020 which is as under-
Order
1) The applicant's prayer to direct investigation u/s 156 (3) of Cr. P. C. is
rejected.
2) The Asst. Supdt. is directed to register this complaint and it be posted for
recording statement of the complainant u/s 200 of Criminal Procedure
Code.
6) It further appears that after passing the aforesaid order dated
23/12/2021 in O. M. C. No. 380/2020, the complaint filed by the non-
applicant came to be re-registered as R. C. C. No. 90/2022 on 19/03/2022 and
 the order dated 18/04/2022 was passed to put up it for verification. It further
appears that on 14/06/2022, the Hon'ble Court of J.M.F.C. recorded the
verification statement of the non-applicant/complainant in R. C. C. No.
90/2022.
7) It further appears that the Hon'ble Court of J. M. F. C., Hinganghat
thereafter passed the order dated 04/11/2022 below Exh. 1 of R. C. C. No.
90/2022, which is as under-
Order Below Exh. 01
(Passed on 04/11/2022)
Read complaint. Perused the verification of complainant. The
allegations in the complaint and verification of the complainant speak that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused no. 2 & 3. Hence,
issue summons to accused no. 2 & 3 for their attendance for the offence
punishable under section 420 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
8) After passing the aforesaid order, the Hon'ble Court of J. M. F. C.
Hinganghat issued the summons dated 28/06/2023 to the present applicants
for their appearance in the court on 04/08/2023. Accordingly, the applicants
received those summons and they appeared before the said Hon'ble Court on
04/08/2023. They filed application for releasing them on bail. They are
enlarged on bail by the said Court on that day and the said complaint case was
posted on 15/09/2023.
9) It is pertinent to note that the applicants neither received the copies of
complaint with accompanying documents along with the aforesaid summons
nor they received the same on 04/08/2023 in spite of their request for the same,
when they appeared before the court of J. M. F. C., Hinganghat. As such, the
copy of the complaint with accompanying documents were not provided by
 the complainant to the applicants and they were not filed by her on record
previously.
10) That therefore, the counsel for the applicants/accused No. 2 and 3 filed
an application on dated 05/08/2023 for securing the certified copies of entire
case papers of O. M. C. No. 380/2020 and R. C. C. No. 90/2022 along with
the orders passed therein and the order sheets copies. Accordingly, the counsel
for the applicants received those certified copies on 11/08/2023 from the
copying section. After the receipt of those copies, the applicants first time
came to know the orders dated 23/12/2021 and dated 04/11/2022 passed by
the Lower Court as above in O.M.C. 380/2020 and R.C.C. No. 90/2022
respectively.
11) That, it is submitted that the applicants very much aggrieved by the
aforesaid orders passed by the J. M. F. C., Hinganghat, the applicants/accused
No. 2 and 3 are constrained to prefer to this revision within a period of
limitation of 90 days from their knowledge to them, before this Hon’ble Court
on the following grounds.
Grounds of revision
1) That, the learned Lower Court has not applied its proper mind while
passing the order dated 23/12/2021 in O. M. C. No. 380/2020 for directing the
Assistant Superintendent to register the complaint and to post it for recording
statement of the complainant u/s 200 of Cr. P. C., when the complaint was
filed u/s 156 (3) of Cr. P. C.
2) That, the non-applicant had filed the complaint under section 156 (3) of
Cr. P. C. for issuing direction to register the offence against the four non-
applicants No. 2 to 5 therein without compliance of the provision of section
154 (3) of Cr. P. C. Hence, the said complaint of the non-applicant was not
tenable before the Lower Court for any relief.
3) That, there is no provision in law, more specifically in Code of Criminal
Procedure, to ask for the alternative relief for taking cognizance and
registration of the complaint filed u/s 156 (3) of Cr. P. C. for any cognizable
offence against the proposed accused persons. Hence, the order passed by the
Lower Court directing the Asst. Supt. to register that complaint as Criminal
Complaint Case is absolutely wrong and not based on any provision of law.
4) That, any complaint for any cognizable offences must be presented
before the Magistrate as per the provision of Section 200 of Cr. P. C.
Thereafter, the Magistrate has to consider the following provisions of the said
Code. The Magistrate has to consider the tenability of the complaint and to
call the inquiry report of the concerned police station under section 202 of the
said Code. Mere oral verification of the complainant is not sufficient to pass
the order of issuing process against the accused persons. From the perusal of
the contents of the complaint and documents filed by the complainant/non-
applicant, the entire matter was of civil nature and the police had already made
preliminary enquiry upon the reports of the applicants No. 1 and 2 and present
non-applicant, and police had issued the letter to that regard to both parties.
Hence, the complaint filed by the non-applicant and its registration as criminal
case is not proper and legal, being its civil nature.
5) Even, there was no compliance of provision of section 204 (2) and (3)
of Cr. P. C. by the non-applicant filing her complaint before the Lower Court,
as no list of prosecution witnesses was filed by the her and no copy of such
complaint was provided in the Court proceeding for the non-applicants
therein. That hence, the Magistrate failed to consider the legal procedure and
provision before passing the order dated 04/11/2022 for issuing the process
against these applicants.
6) That, it is the fact on record that the specific complaint u/s 200 of Cr.
P. C. was not presented by the complainant/non-applicant before the
Magistrate, hence, the Magistrate had no authority to convert that complaint
which was filed u/s 156 (3) of Cr. P. C. Thus, the order passed by the
Magistrate on 23/12/2021 and 04/11/2022 are liable to be interfered by this
Hon'ble Court and to set them aside.
7) That, the order of issuing process against the accused No. 2 and
3/applicants only and not issuing the process against remaining accused No.
4 and 5 of the complaint dated 27/10/2020 is not legal, sound and reasonable
in the eyes of law. No reasons are given for the same by the Lower Court
while passing the order dated 04/11/2022. Hence, it is liable to be set aside.
8) That, the learned Lower Court ought to have rejected the entire
complaint filed by the complainant/non-applicant without taking its
cognizance u/s 200 of Cr. P. C. as it was untenable under law.
9) That, the learned Lower Court has made serious errors while registering
the Reg. Cri. Case No. 90/2022, and hence, the order passed on 23/12/2021 is
liable to be quashed and the order dated 04/11/2022 for issuing summons to
the applicants/accused No. 2 and 3 is also liable to be set aside as the learned
Lower Court has passed the wrong and incorrect orders, which are not sound
and proper in the eyes of law.
10) That, the applicants may kindly be allowed to put forth any other
grounds at the time of argument for this revision, looking into the facts and
circumstances of the matter, in the ends of justice.
Prayer:- It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to-
E) Register this revision against the order dated 23/12/2021 passed in O.M.C.
No. 380/2020, -------------------- –Vs- State of Maharashtra through P. S.
Hinganghat and 4 others and the order dated 04/11/2022 passed in R. C.
 C. No. 90/2022, ------------------------- –Vs- State of Maharashtra through
P. S. Hinganghat and 4 others by the Hon'ble Court of J.M.F.C.,
Hinganghat.
F) Call the original case records of the O. M. C. No. 380/2020 and R. C. C.
No. 90/2022, ------------------- –Vs- State of Maharashtra through P. S.
Hinganghat and 4 others
G) Hear the revision and set aside the orders dated 23/12/2021 and 04/11/2022
passed at Exh. 1 of the aforesaid O. M. C. No. 380/2020 and R. C. C. No.
90/2022 respectively and to dismiss the complaint filed by the non-
applicant against the present applicants.
H) Any other relief fit and proper be given to the applicants/accused No. 2 and
3 in the ends of justice.
Hinganghat ------------------------

Dated: 27/09/2023 ------------------------

Counsel for the accused Applicants/accused No. 2 and 3

Note: The revision is filed today on 27/09/2023 against the orders dated 23/12/2021
and 04/11/2022 passed by the Lower Court, which came to their knowledge clearly
on 11/08/2023 after receiving the certified copies thereof. The applicants were
summoned to appear on 04/08/2023 by the Lower Court and they applied for the
certified copies of the said orders and other papers on 05/08/2023 and they received
the same on 11/08/2023. Hence, applicants came to know the said impugned orders
first time on 11/08/2023. Hence, the revision is within the period of limitation from
the knowledge of the orders to the applicants.

Counsel for applicants