1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3121/2009 Applicant :- Ashok s/o Gulabrao Bondre, Aged about 42 years, Occupation – Tailoring Shop, R/o Laxminagar, Mouda, Tahsil Mouda, District : Nagpur. ...Versus... Respondents :- 1. Shri Vilas s/o Madhukarrao Deshmukh, Aged about – Major, Occupation Government Service Police Inspector attached to Police Station Mouda, Tahsil – Mouda, District Nagpur. 2. Shri Ramprasad s/o Not known Pancheshwar, aged about – Major, Occupation Government Servant as Police Head Constable, Buckle No.933 attached to Police Station – Mouda, Tahsil Mouda, District : Nagpur. 3. Shri Anandrao s/o Mahadeo Tijare, Aged about 56 years, Occupation – Country Liquor Shop, R/o Laxmingar, Lapka Road, Mouda, Tahsil Mouda, District Nagpur. 4. Smt. Kundatai w/o Anandrao Tijare, Aged about 41 years, Occupation – Political Leader, R/o Laxminagar, Mouda, Tahsil Mouda, District – Nagpur. 5. State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer Mouda Police Station, Mouda, Tahsil Mouda, District Nagpur. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri S.N. Kharabe, Adv. for applicant] [Shri A.S. Sonare, APP for respdt. No.5] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 18.02.2010 1. At the outset, it is seen that the judgment and order dated 14.3.2005, made by the revisional Court in Criminal Revision 2 Application No.747/2004 having been challenged in this application, the same could not have been entertained due to the delay and laches on the part of the applicant. But then learned Counsel for the applicant successfully persuaded me to go through even on merits of the matter, which I did. 2. It is seen that the grievance of the applicant is that Mukhtyarnama, P.R. Bond and document of surety were forged and filed in the Court of Magistrate and therefore, the applicant felt aggrieved and filed a private complaint case in relation to the offences in respect of which in Law cognizance can only be taken by the same Court in the light of the provisions of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revisional Court found as a fact that the complaint could not have been filed by a private complainant in respect of the proceedings in which the forged documents were said to have been inserted in those proceedings and it was the said Court of Magistrate alone, which could have under his signature filed a complaint. 3. The revisional Court took this view since the decision of the Bombay High Court still holds the field in the case of Govardhan A. Vazirani…Versus…State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in 1992 (3) Crimes 545. The said decision as well as decision rendered by the revisional Court impugned before me, in my opinion, are strictly in consonance with the provisions of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, the revisional Court rightly found even on merits that the applicant was not entitled to institute such a complaint. Thus, on merits also the complaint filed by the applicant was not maintainable and it would be mere waste of judicial time to allow the complainant to continue such proceedings which was started by him way back in the year 2003. Thus, for the above reasons, therefore, no useful purpose would be served as contended by learned Counsel for the 3 applicant by remand the matter for fresh trial. 4. The decision cited by learned Counsel in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and another...Versus...Meenakshi Marwah and another, reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2119 will have no application as it relates to the power of Magistrate himself to file complaint in respect of the forged documents filed even subsequently, but the said decision of the Supreme Court has nothing to do with a private person filing complaint. 5. For all these reasons, therefore, I do not find any merit in the present criminal application. The same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE SSW