-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.60 OF 2008 Dr.Shri Jaipal Appana Koregave : Petitioner (Orig.Complainant) V/s. Sanjay K. Dhikale & Ors. : Respondents (No.1 & 2 Orig.Accused) ... Mr.N.D.Hombalkar for the petitioner. Mrs.Swapna Kode for respondent no.1. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. ... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : APRIL 27, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioner filed a private complaint against the 1st and 2nd respondents alleging commission of offences under sections 171, 408, 409, 417 and 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the petitioner in the complaint is that at the relevant time, the 1st respondent was working as an Officer in the City Survey Office, Kolhapur, and the 2nd respondent was working as a Clerk in the said office. On 10.11.2005, the -: 2 :- petitioner applied to the office of the City Survey Officer, Kolhapur, for making available certified copy of the extract of the Property Register Card of his property. When the petitioner made the said application, the 1st and 2nd respondents demanded postage stamps of the denomination of Rs.18/- from the petitioner. Accordingly, postage stamps were handed over by the petitioner to the 1st and 2nd respondents for which the said respondents issued a receipt. The grievance of the petitioner is that on account of the said conduct of the 1st and 2nd respondents, he submitted a police complaint with the concerned Police Station, however, cognizance thereof has not been taken. It is stated in the complaint that the superior officers of the 1st and 2nd respondents have supported the said respondents by publishing an explanation in a daily newspaper for accepting the postal stamps of Rs.18/-. 3. On the said private complaint, the learned Magistrate passed an order directing investigation under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Code"). The concerned Investigating Officer submitted a report claiming ‘C’ summary. The report indicated no offence was made out. On the basis of the said report, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint by exercising power under section 203 of the said Code. A Revision Application was -: 3 :- preferred by the petitioner against the said order. The said Revision Application has been rejected. 4. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (original complainant) is that the scope of investigation to be carried out under section 202 of the said Code is very limited. While carrying out investigation, the police officer concerned cannot look into the defence of the accused or cannot consider any document produced by the accused. He has placed reliance on the decisions of the apex Court in the case of Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose (AIR 1963 SC 1430) and S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd. & Ors. [(2008) 2 SCC 492]. He submitted that in the present case, the Investigating Officer has committed gross illegality by recording the statements of the accused and by considering the documents produced by the accused. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Magistrate ought to have ignored the report and issued process on the basis of allegations made in the complaint. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. Going by the averments made in the complaint filed by the petitioner, it appears that when the petitioner applied for certified copy of the extract of the Property Register Card, the 1st and 2nd respondents who were working in the -: 4 :- City Survey Office called upon the petitioner to supply postal stamps of the denomination of Rs.18/-. In the report, the concerned police officer has noted that once such an application is made to the City Survey Office by a citizen, the office of the City Survey Officer is required to issue notices. Postal stamps are required for issuing notices which are normally not available in the office. In the report, it is disclosed that to avoid any delay, the postal stamps of the denomination of Rs.18/- are taken from the citizen, assuming that the department will have to issue three notices and one notice Under Certificate of Posting. Therefore, it is noted in the report that no offence has been made out. 6. Keeping aside the report submitted by the police, in the complaint itself, the petitioner has disclosed that he supplied postal stamps of the denomination of Rs.18/- to the 1st and 2nd respondents and that acknowledgement for the said postal stamps was issued by the 1st and 2nd respondents. In fact, going by the averments made in the complaint, no offence was spelt out. Assuming that the report of the police is required to be ignored, still the Courts below were justified in holding that no offence was made out. There is no illegality committed by the Courts below. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is rejected. -: 5 :- A.S. OKA, J.