VASANT S/O. PANDURANG POLversusRAJESH @ RAJENDRA S/O. HIRALAL JADHAV AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:38724


                                                                               27.20revn
                                                   (1)

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      41 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 27 OF 2020

                                   VASANT S/O. PANDURANG POL
                                               VERSUS
                           1. RAJESH @ RAJENDRA S/O. HIRALAL JADHAV
                                    2. ANIL S/O HIRALAL JADHAV
                      3. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. POLICE STATION
                               JALGAON (CITY), TQ. & DIST. JALGAON
                                                   …..
                 Mr G. G. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Applicant
                 Mrs B. B. Gunjal, APP for Respondent No.3/State
                                                …..

                                          CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                             DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2026

                 P. C. :


                 1.          Heard learned Advocate Mr Suryawanshi for the applicant

                 and the learned APP for respondent No.3/State.


                 2.          The applicant is praying for quashing and setting aside the

                 impugned judgment and order dated 16/05/2019, passed by the learned

                 Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Criminal Appeal No.45/2014. Vide the said

                 impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed

                 the judgment and order dated 10/03/2014, passed by the learned Chief

                 Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon in RCC No.223/2010, thereby acquitting

                 respondent Nos.1 and 2/accused.
                                                               27.20revn
                                   (2)

3.            According to learned Advocate for the applicant, he is the

original complainant and has filed complaint against respondent No.1

and 2 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon. As per the

said complaint, it was alleged that the applicant had borrowed

Rs.30,000/- from respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 07/09/2004 and the said

amount was repaid by the applicant from time to time. However,

despite repayment of said amount, on 01/04/2008, respondents/accused

demanded Rs.90,000/- from the applicant with interest. He further

alleged that respondents assaulted the applicant and his wife Kalpana.

Therefore, his wife filed complaint before the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Jalgaon bearing No.RCC 982/2008. Further it is alleged in

the complaint that respondents threatened the applicant and his wife

and obtained his signatures on stamp papers.           On 07/09/2004,

respondent No.1 alleged to have forcefully prepared receipt for

Rs.30,000/-. It is also alleged that respondent Nos.1 and 2, from time

time, with a view to extort money and interest, prepared five receipts

on stamp papers. With all these allegations, the complaint came to be

registered.


4.            Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon, vide the order

dated 11/08/2009, directed the Police Authorities to conduct

investigation as per the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Code of
                                                                27.20revn
                                      (3)

Criminal Procedure. After completion of investigation, charge sheet

came to be filed against respondent Nos.1 and 2 for aforesaid offences.

During the course of evidence, prosecution examined four witnesses.

Further, after recording evidence of three witnesses, the evidence came

to be closed, and after hearing learned Advocates for the parties

learned Chief Judicial magistrate rejected the complaint vide the

impugned order dated 10/03/2014 on the ground that the prosecution

has failed to prove charges against respondent Nos.1 and 2.


5.           Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order

dated 10/03/2014 in RCC No.223/2010, the applicant preferred

criminal appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.45/2014 before the

learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon under Section 372 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. Learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the learned

Advocates for the parties, dismissed the said appeal vide the impugned

judgment and order dated 16/05/2019. Hence, aggrieved by both the

judgment and orders, the applicant has approached this Court by filing

this criminal revision application.



6.           Mr Suryawanshi, learned Advocate for the applicant

submits that the learned Subordinate Courts have committed a grave

error in not calling the Investigating Officer for recording the evidence
                                                                 27.20revn
                                   (4)

and the evidence was closed and this act is illegal on the part of the

Subordinate Court. He then submits that, non-examination of the said

witness (Investigating Officer) has caused prejudice to his case, and

therefore, in absence of such vital evidence, his complaint came to be

rejected, which was not proper. He further submits that the learned

Judicial Magistrate has committed error in law, thereby not affording

opportunity to the prosecution to examine the Investigating Officer,

and thus, the impugned judgment and orders require to be quashed and

set aside. He further submits that the learned Sessions Court also

dismissed the appeal and not considered his ground that opportunity to

record evidence of Investigating Officer was not granted to him. He

then submits that both the Subordinate Courts have committed error,

and as such, both the judgment and orders are liable to be quashed and

set aside.

7.            After hearing the learned Advocate for the applicant, it is

clear that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint

filed by the applicant after recording evidence of three witnesses.

Copies of Roznama were made available to this Court by Mr

Suryawanshi, which are in the paper-book before the Appellate Court.

The    said    Roznama     discloses     that,   on   various   occasions,

PW-4/Investigating Officer was summoned for recording his evidence,
                                                               27.20revn
                                   (5)

however, the said PW-4/Investigating Officer appears to have

remained absent.      Therefore, complainant preferred application for

issuing summons to the Investigating Officer. However, the same was

rejected. It was observed by the learned Sessions Court that, even if

the Investigating Officer had been permitted to be examined, he would

have deposed about the investigation conducted by him.              The

Investigating Officer was not eye witness to the incident nor he had

seen the original stamp papers during the course of Investigating

Officer.


8.          It is also important to note that there is no dispute that

after conducting investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against

the accused on the basis of evidence and material collected during the

course of investigation, and therefore, after recording evidence of the

prosecution witness Nos.1, 2 and 3, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Jalgaon has chosen to proceed further without recording the evidence

of PW-4/Investigating Officer. Since PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are only

the eye witnesses, the learned Magistrate observed that the

Investigating Officer would have at the most deposed regarding the

investigation only.      Therefore, non-examination of evidence of

Investigation Officer has not caused prejudice to case of the applicant.
                                                              27.20revn
                                  (6)

I am of the opinion that both the learned Courts below have not

committed any error in law, thereby not permitting the Investigating

Officer to record his evidence. On the contrary, learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate had given sufficient time to the prosecution to record the

evidence of the Investigating Officer, however, since the said witness

did not remain present, the case came to be proceeded without

recording evidence of the Investigating Officer.


9.          Learned    Subordinate Courts have not committed any

mistake, and therefore, there is no ground to upset their judgment and

orders. In that view of the matter, the instant criminal revision

application, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.




                                    [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]
sjk