1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 1141 OF 2009 Venkatrao S/o Narhari More and others Versus State of Maharashtra and another *** Mr. S. S. Rathi, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. K. M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for the Respondent/ State. Mr. A. V. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2. *** 1. Heard learned counsel. By consent, matter is finally heard at admission stage. 2. The parties had civil litigation in which sale deed of agricultural field was executed. Thereafter, a private complaint came to be filed on 10th November, 1997 invoking section 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 109 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The respondent No.2 alleged that the petitioner herein along with other accused misrepresented mother of the complainant (Respondent No.2) and got the sale deed executed in favour of the mino4r sons of Petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by order dated 11th November, 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 1997 directed inquiry in terms of section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. against accused Nos.1, 2 and 5. The investigating officer submitted his report to the Court of learned C.J.M., Latur and pointed that after inquiry it revealed that the land in question was already sold by the complainant in the year 1973 and in 1977 there was no land remained with the complainant. Considering the submissions made, the learned C.J.M. granted "C" Summary by order dated 30th December, 1999. 3. During the course of submission, Mr. Patil representing original complainant informs that there was a revision being Criminal Revision No.118 of 2007 taken by Kerba Narsingrao More (Respondent No.2) seeking challenge to the order dated 13th December, 2006 recorded by learned C.J.M. in present proceeding [RCC 800 of 1997]. The order of learned C.J.M. was set aside by the Additional Sessions Judge on 12th June, 2008. 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 4. The fact remains that there operates already an order against the Respondent, dated 30th December, 1999 in view of such order there being "C" summary, the learned Judge by subsequent order dated 11th August, 2008, could not issue process against accused Nos.1, 2 3 for several sections of Indian Penal Code. The approach of the learned Judge is contrary to law and record. Consequently interference as sought is required. The order of learned C.J.M. is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute in above terms. 5. The grievance of Mr. Patil to address to the order dated 30th December, 1999 regarding "C" Summary, is kept open to be agitated, if law permits. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:04/09/2009. ans/1141