1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 700 /2010 ( Ankush Harish Rewadia vs. Shriniwas Warambhe and another ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 20 th June, 2011. Heard Mr. J.M.Gandhi, learned counsel for the applicant; Mr. T.A.Ansari, h/for Mr. Dangre, counsel for respondent no.1 and Mrs. K.D. Deshpande, learned APP for respondent no.2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the order dated 13.9.2010 passed by learned Ad- hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision No. 840/2008 whereby the learned Judge was pleased to set aside the order dated 4.9.2007 passed by learned JMFC (Corporation Court No.2) Nagpur in Crime No. 61/2007 (State vs. Ankush). It appears that the respondent no.1 is the proprietor of M/s Excel Fibrotec at Amravati Road, Nagpur doing business in selling playground equipments and fiber products since the year 2000. He had lodged the report regarding the incident of theft of property on the ground that certain products were missing from his premises. According to 2 him, the police authorities had not conducted proper investigation into his complaint in details and chose to file discharge report under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “the Code”) in the Court of JMFC (Corporation Court No. 2) although there was sufficient evidence against the accused. The learned JMFC by order dated 4th September, 2007 accepted the report filed by PSI Shri V.V. Wakase in Crime No. 61/2007 reported under section 379 of IPC against Ankush Harish Rewadia ( present petitioner). Aggrieved by the order whereby petitioner- Ankush was released in view of the police report under section 169 of the Code, the respondent no.1 had moved Criminal Revision. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge Nagpur who by the impugned order observed that no sufficient opportunity was granted to the revision applicant to oppose the police report under section 169 of the Code, decided to set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the said order of accepting the report under section 169 of the Code was in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice as fair and proper opportunity was not given to the revision applicant to file his reply in writing. Under these circumstances, the learned trial Magistrate was directed to allow the applicant to file his say to the application under section 169 of the Code, hear the parties and then to dispose of the application according to law. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted 3 that the learned Magistrate was right in accepting the police report because sufficient opportunity was given to the respondent no.1 to file his written reply to the discharge application. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent no.1 that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge examined the record while deciding the Revision Application and rightly held that the principles of natural justice require that opportunity to be given to both the parties of hearing in respect of the said report. According to learned Advocate for respondent no.1, the report was filed by one PSI Wakase against whom allegations of corruption were levelled and there were newspaper reports regarding his abscondence. He, therefore, submitted that no prejudice would be caused even if parties are heard after respondent no.1 filed his written reply in respect of the report submitted u/s 169 of the Code. Learned APP left it to the sweet will of this Court to pass an appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case. I think that no serious prejudice would be caused to either of the parties if the learned Magistrate is directed to consider the written reply to be filed by the respondent, if any, and hear the parties and decide whether to accept or reject the report u/s 169 of the Code. Even otherwise, the learned Magistrate is bound to accept the police report if it decides to take cognizance of the 4 offence. I do not find any serious infirmity in the impugned order. Learned Advocate for respondent no.1 assures that the written reply shall be filed within two weeks from the date of appearance before the Magistrate pursuant to this order. The learned Magistrate to decide the application as expeditiously as possible after considering the written reply and after hearing the parties. The parties shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 1st July 2011 at 11.00 a.m. With the above directions, Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Sahare