SHIVRAJ HANUMANTRAO PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:45909
                                                                      40appln4142-23

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        40 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4142 OF 2013
                                     IN WP/72/2000

                                     Shivraj Hanumantrao Patil
                                              VERSUS
                              The State Of Maharashtra And Another
                                                ...
            Mr. Shankar B. Kendre h/for Mr. Gaddime Arvind N., Advocate for
            Applicant
            Mr. D. J. Patil, APP for the Respondent-State


                                    CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                      Dated : 28th September, 2026
            PER COURT :-

            1.       Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP for

            the respondent State.


            2.       The present application is filed for restoration of original

            proceedings i.e. Writ Petition No. 72 of 2000. The original proceedings

            came to be dismissed by this Court on 14.06.2012 by observing that

            the matter was admitted was kept for final hearing. However, as the

            petitioner did not appear on the date for the final hearing the matter

            was dismissed. The present application is filed on 13.08.2013 seeking

            restoration of the original proceedings with a prayer for condonation of

            delay of 396 days in filing of the application.


            3.       Though I have gone through the contents of the application,

            and not satisfied with the explanation tendered in the said application



                                                                               1 of 3
                                                          40appln4142-23

for condonation of delay, still in the interest of of justice, with the

assistance the learned Advocates appearing for the applicant and the

learned APP for the State, I have gone through the original

proceedings.


4.      The original proceedings are filed challenging the order dated

17.03.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in

Criminal Revision No. 15 of 1997. The revision preferred by the State

came to be allowed and the order of the learned JMFC refusing to

accept ‘B’ summary report has been set aside.    ‘B’ summary report in

Crime No. 140 of 1994 was directed to be accepted, however, the

observation was made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur

in the operative part of the order clause 3 that the “no action under

section 395 IPC    be taken against the complainant.”      The present

applicant challenges the only that portion of the order by stating that

the complaint was bogus and forged and false and therefore, the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, out not to have observed that

said portion in the operative part of the order dated 17.03.1999.


5.      After hearing both the sides, the grounds that has been raised

in the present original proceedings are not satisfactory for the reason

that in case the application is of the opinion that his prosecution was

lodged on the basis of false or bogus documents, then the applicant

had appropriate remedy to approach the concerned court by lodging


                                                                    2 of 3
                                                                      40appln4142-23

           appropriate proceedings against the complainant.           Whether the

           documents were bogus or false cannot be inferred by looking at those

           documents. The same has to be proved on the basis of the evidence.

           The proceedings under section 395 of IPC are the proceedings inter se

           between the court and the party who has submitted the documents.

           While scrutinizing the inducements, at least the record of the case does

           not indicate that the court had prima facie formed its opinion that there

           was any falsity or the complaint was bogus. Even after investigation

           the police has filed ‘B’ summary report. Thus, they themselves have

           concluded that the complaint is neither false not true.


           6.       In the light of the above, as the original proceeding itself does

           not deserve any merit, the present application cannot be considered

           after lapse of several years and that too for condonation of delay of

           396 days.   Hence, the application has no merit, and stands dismissed.




                                                       (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)
JPChavan




                                                                                3 of 3