Rukmini Narvekar vs Vijay Sataredkar & Ors

4. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in both these appeals are husband and wife, being Ranjit Satardekar and his wife Vijaya Satardekar. An FIR dated 25.2.2002 was filed against these respondents by one Rukmini Narvekar (the appellant herein) under various provisions of the IPC including Sections 409, 420, 423, etc. A true copy of this FIR is annexed as P6 in this appeal. The gist of this FIR is that the complainant is an illiterate person and so was her husband Raghunath Narvekar. It is alleged that the respondent Ranjit Satardekar, who is an advocate, fraudulently and dishonestly induced the complainant and her deceased husband to place their signatures and thumb impression on some papers in the office of the Executive Magistrate at Sawantwadi without explaining the contents thereof, and falsely misrepresenting that the same was necessary to give him necessary authority to represent them in the court in Goa in Inventory Proceedings on the death of Andre Andrade which were going on pertaining to the estate left by him. It may be mentioned that Andre Andrade had several children including one daughter who was married to Raghunath Narvekar but their marriage was dissolved on 16.2.1973 and thereafter Raghunath Narvekar married the complainant. Under the Goa law, Raghunath Narvekar and the complainant inherited 10% share in the estate left by the deceased Andre Andrade and the remaining 10% went to Vijaya 3 Andrade who had been married to Raghunath Narvekar and was being represented by Ranjit Satardekar, advocate, in the Inventory Proceedings.

5. The allegation in the FIR was that Ranjit Satardekar had falsely misrepresented to the complainant and her husband that the document which was being executed by them was for enabling Ranjit to represent them in the Inventory Proceedings in progress on the death of Andre Andrade, although what was actually executed by them was a Power of Attorney. This Power of Attorney was used by the accused for executing a sale deed in favour of his wife Vijaya Satardekar and Sadiq Sheikh in the year 1991, but the said sale deed was presented for registration only in the year 2001. It is alleged that the complainant came to know only in August 2001 for the first time about the execution of the sale deed in 1991. Thus it is alleged that the property of the complainant was purported to have been sold away by Ranjit Satardekar, advocate by deceit and misrepresentation for which he deserved to be punished under Sections 409, 420 and other provisions of the IPC.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, the police investigated the case and filed a chargesheet against both Ranjit Satardekar and Smt.Vijaya Satardekar as well as two others. Thereafter, cognizance was taken of the offence alleged in the chargesheet and process was issued by the Judicial 4 Magistrate, First Class, Panaji under Sections 468/471/420/120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. Against the order taking cognizance and issuing process against the accused, they filed a Criminal Revision before the Sessions Judge, Panaji, which was dismissed by his judgment dated 19.6.2007. Against that order a writ petition was filed which was allowed by the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 3.8.2007. Hence this appeal.

18. In our opinion, therefore, it cannot be said as an absolute proposition that under no circumstances can the Court look into the material produced by the defence at the time of framing of the charges, though this should be done in very rare cases, i.e. where the defence produces some material which convincingly demonstrates that the whole prosecution case is totally absurd or totally concocted. We agree with Shri Lalit that in some very rare cases the Court is justified in looking into the material produced by the 10 defence at the time of framing of the charges, if such material convincingly establishes that the whole prosecution version is totally absurd, preposterous or concocted.

21. Thus we allow the criminal appeal in which Ranjit Satardekar is the respondent and we set aside the judgment of the High Court in respect of Ranjit Sataredkar and direct that the criminal proceedings against him will 11 go on in the trial Court. However, the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made in this judgment.

22. As regards the other criminal appeal in which Smt. Vijaya Satardekar, wife of Ranjit Satardekar, is the respondent, we are of the opinion that there is no material whatsoever either mentioned in the FIR or produced by the prosecution to show that Vijaya Satardekar was in any way involved in the alleged criminal offence committed by her husband Ranjit Satardekar. The only allegation against her is that the sale deed was in her favour. In our opinion this does not prima facie make out any offence. In our opinion, therefore, the criminal proceeding against Vijaya Satardekar was rightly quashed by the High Court and the criminal appeal in which Vijaya Satardekar is respondent is dismissed.

23. There shall be no order as to costs.

10. However, as indicated by my learned Brother, the complaint made does make out a prima facie case against accused Ranjit Satardekar and the cognizance taken by the learned magistrate cannot be faulted and the appeal as far as he is concerned, must be allowed. However, even prima facie, none of the offences referred to in the charge-sheet can be made out against accused Vijaya Satardekar and she has been roped in only with the aid of Section 120B which is also not substantiated. The appeal as far as she is concerned, must be dismissed.

11. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

_____________J.

(ALTAMAS KABIR) New Delhi Dated:03.10.2008