PRATAP FAUZDAR SINGH AND ANR.versusVINOD FAUZDAR SINGH AND ANR.

SAGAR MAGAR                                                         WP-779-2019.doc




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 779 OF 2019

1. Pratap Fauzdar Singh
   Age:- 49 years, Occ.: Advocate
   Having office at behind Singh Flour Mill,
   Hanuman Nagar, adjacent to BMC School,
   Thakkar Bappa Colony,
   Chembur, Mumbai – 400 071.

2. Santosh Fauzdar Singh
   Age :- 45 years, Occ. : Business,
   R/o. :- B-105, Building No. 61,
   Vidyut CHS, Nehru Nagar, Kurla (E),
   Mumbai – 400 024.                                         … Petitioners

         V/s.

1. Vinod Fauzdar Singh
  Age :- 61 years, Occ. : Retired,
  R/o :- C-604, Sunshine Tower, Suncity,
  Ghasgaon road, Vasai (W) Palghar.


2. The State of Maharashtra
   The Chief Public Prosecutor, High Court,
   Criminal Side, Mumbai.                                    … Respondents

                          ______________________

Ms. Mrunmai Kulkarni a/w Mr. Rohit Vaishya for the Petitioners.
Mr. Ashutosh V. Singh for the Respondent No. 1.
Ms. Manisha Tidkde, APP for the Respondent No. 2-State.
                           ______________________

                          CORAM : RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.

                    RESERVED ON : 8th JULY 2026.
                 PRONOUNCED ON : 5th OCTOBER 2026.


                                                                        1/19
SAGAR MAGAR                                                              WP-779-2019.doc




JUDGMENT :-

1)             By the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India, and under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (for short, "CrPC") the Petitioners seek to quash and set aside Order

dated 17th January 2019 in Criminal Revision Application No. 649 of 2017

whereby the Learned Sessions Court set aside the order of Metropolitan

Magistrate Court accepting ‘C’ Summary and rejecting protest petition filed by

the Respondent No. 1 herein. The Petitioners also take a special exception to

the direction of imposing a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the Petitioners, when infact

the Petitioners were Respondents in the Revision Application and it was the

original Complainant who had approached the Court.

2)             Heard Ms. Mrunmai Kulkarni, learned Advocate appearing for the

Petitioners, Mr. Ashutosh V. Singh, learned Advocate appearing for the

Respondent No. 1, and Ms. Manisha Tidke, learned APP for the Respondent

No. 2-State.

3)             Briefly stated facts are as under :-

3.1)           Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the brothers of Respondent

No.1/Original Complainant. Their father, late Faujdar Singh, owned a plot

admeasuring approximately 650 sq. ft. at Thakkar Bappa Colony, on which a

flour mill and shops were situated. After their father's death in May 2001,

Respondent No.1 claims to have looked after the property and business, while


                                                                             2/19
SAGAR MAGAR                                                             WP-779-2019.doc



Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 were engaged in their respective businesses.

3.2)          A dispute, thereafter arose between the brothers, regarding the

said property. Respondent No.1 alleges that Petitioner No.1, who is an

Advocate, intended to deprive him of his share in the property, resulting in

several complaints between the parties.

3.3)          It is the allegation of Respondent No.1 that, Petitioner Nos.1 and

2 subsequently produced certain documents in civil suit before the City Civil

Court, claiming that Respondent No.1 had executed the said documents in

their favour on 20th December 2005. Respondent No.1 categorically alleged

that, he had neither executed nor signed those documents and that the

signature appearing on the documents was not his signature. The documents

allegedly include a General Power of Attorney, Affidavit and Release Deed

dated 20th December 2005.

3.4)          Respondent No.1 alleges that Petitioners Nos.1 and 2, with the

assistance of Accused No.3 Ram Naval Singh, forged the said documents with

the dishonest intention of depriving him of his 1/3rd share in the property. It

is alleged that, the forged documents were knowingly used before the City

Civil Court as evidence in support of the Petitioners' claim over the property.

3.5)          Respondent    No.1   also   relies   upon   alleged   irregularities

concerning his signature, notarization, seal, the Notary's records and the date

appearing on the documents as circumstances indicating forgery. Respondent

No.1 has contended that despite approaching the police, no action was taken


                                                                            3/19
SAGAR MAGAR                                                            WP-779-2019.doc



on the ground that the dispute was pending before the civil court. That, the

accused threatened him when he sought to take action in respect of the

alleged forged documents. On the basis of these allegations, Respondent No.1

sought prosecution of the accused for offences punishable under Sections 420,

405, 466, 468, 506(II) and 120-B of the IPC.

4)            Ms. Mrunmai Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the Petitioners,

submitted that:-

4.1)          The Revisional Court has exceeded the scope of its jurisdiction by

interfering with a well-reasoned Order dated 19 th June 2017 passed by the

Metropolitan Magistrate Court. There is no illegality or perversity warranting

interference.

4.2)          Respondent No. 1 had falsely filed the frivolous complaint under

Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC on the allegations that the signatures on the

Release Deed and General Power of Attorney are forged and fabricated.

4.3)          The Investigating Authorities have taken the original Release

Deed and Power of Attorney from the Court records for specimen signature

verification. That, specimen signatures of the Respondent as well as of the

Petitioners had been taken by the Police and sent to the Handwriting Expert

for opinion. After receiving the report from the Handwriting Expert, the

Investigating Agency had filed C-Summary Report before the Metropolitan

Magistrate, 34th Court at Vikhroli, Mumbai.

4.4)          The   learned   Magistrate,   after   examining   the   complaint,


                                                                           4/19
SAGAR MAGAR                                                             WP-779-2019.doc



investigation papers, final report, protest petition, documentary evidence,

statements of witnesses, and the report of the Handwriting Expert, dismissed

the said complaint by order dated 19th June 2017. The Order dated 19th June

2017 considers the entire material available on record. In this factual

background, the Revisional Court had to only test the legality and propriety of

the Order and not re-appreciate the entire evidence and come to a different

conclusion. That, the jurisdiction of the Revisional Court is limited to

correcting jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or material irregularity. Re-

appreciation of evidence and substitution of findings is impermissible under

Section 397 of the CrPC. The Revisional Court, in fact, sat in appeal, which is

impermissible in law. The impugned Order dated 17 th January 2019 passed by

the Sessions Court in revision does not identify any jurisdictional error,

procedural irregularity, or perversity.

4.5)          The non-application of mind of the Revisional Court is writ large

from the fact that, the Revisional Court had imposed costs of Rs.10,000/-

upon the Petitioners without any reason or justification, though the Revision

Application was filed by Respondent No. 1. The order indicates total non-

application of mind.

4.6)          That, after registration of the FIR, a comprehensive investigation

was conducted. The Handwriting Expert's opinion clearly states that the

signatures of Respondent No. 1, i.e., N-1 to N-5, the specimen signatures at B-

1 to B-6, and the signatures on the Release Deed and General Power of


                                                                            5/19
SAGAR MAGAR                                                              WP-779-2019.doc



Attorney, being Q-1 to Q-17, are written by one and the same hand.

4.7)          The Handwriting Expert's report clearly negates the alleged

offence of forgery. The Investigating Agency submitted a C-Summary Report,

thereby making it clear that the dispute is of a civil nature. That, the

allegations were not substantiated by the evidence collected during the

investigation.

4.8)          Learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1, during the course of

arguments, has admitted that the Affidavit-cum-Undertaking of the Petitioners

had been signed by Respondent No. 1

4.9)          It is necessary to keep in mind that the dispute pertains to the

shares of real brothers in ancestral property. That, the dispute between the

parties is essentially a family dispute arising out of rights in family property. A

civil dispute has been given a colour of a criminal offence.

4.10)         That, the Order dated 19 th June 2017 considered all the material

and documents on record and has been passed after following the procedure.

That, Respondent No. 1 has neither approached the Police under Section

154(1), nor has any application been made to the Superintendent of Police

under Section 154(3) of the Cr.PC.

5)            Mr. Ashutosh Singh, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1,

submitted that:-

5.1)          The Petitioners and Respondent No. 1 are real brothers, and the

disputes between them pertain to division of ancestral properties inherited


                                                                             6/19
SAGAR MAGAR                                                                WP-779-2019.doc



after the demise of their father.

5.2)          On 7th February 2016, Respondent No. 1 had approached Nehru

Nagar Police Station with a complaint against the Petitioners alleging

obstruction and interference with his rights in the ancestral property. That,

pursuant to discussions, a settlement was arrived at wherein Respondent No.

1 agreed to release and relinquish 1/3 rd of his right, title and interest in the

ancestral property for a lump sum payment of Rs. 18,00,000/-. That, the

Petitioners executed an Affidavit-cum-Undertaking dated 7 th February 2006,

Affidavit, Power of Attorney, Release Deed and Family Settlement Deed,

acknowledging their liability and undertaking to pay the amount.

5.3)          The cheques issued for payment of the said amount of Rs.

18,00,000/- have been dishonoured, and separate legal proceedings under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have been filed.

5.4)          The Petitioner No. 2 has instituted Civil Suit No. 2696 of 2006

against Respondent No. 1. That, in the Civil Suit, the Petitioner has relied

upon the forged and fabricated Release Deed and Irrevocable General Power

of Attorney dated 20th December 2005. That, Respondent No. 1 has neither

executed the said documents nor appeared before any Notary or authority for

execution of the same.

5.5)          Upon realizing        the   fraud   committed   by   the   Petitioners,

Respondent No. 1 initiated criminal proceeding by filing a private complaint

under Section 156(3) before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, at Vikhroli.


                                                                               7/19
SAGAR MAGAR                                                           WP-779-2019.doc



That, investigation under Section 156(3) was directed, and M.E.C.R. No. 272

of 2006 came to be registered against the Petitioners for offences punishable

under Sections 406, 466, 467, 468, 506(II) read with Section 34 of the IPC.

5.6)          After the C-Summary Report was filed, Respondent No. 1 filed a

detailed Protest Petition and also led evidence in support thereof. That, the

learned Magistrate, by Order dated 19 th June 2017, improperly accepted the

C-Summary Report and dismissed the complaint. That, the Order of the

Sessions Court dated 17th January 2019 is an interlocutory and administrative

Order which remands the matter back to the learned Magistrate with

directions to hear the application afresh, consider the Police Report, and pass

a speaking Order. Therefore, no cause of action has arisen for filing the

present Petition. That, the Writ Petition is filed at a premature stage and is

not maintainable.

5.7)          The Petitioners have an alternative remedy of seeking discharge.

That, if the Petitioners' claim is to be accepted that Respondent No.1 had

already executed the Release Deed and the Irrevocable Power of Attorney

dated 20th December 2005 and relinquished his rights, then there was no

reason to enter into a fresh settlement at Nehru Nagar Police Station on 7 th

February 2006. By the Affidavit-cum-Undertaking dated 7th February 2006, the

Petitioners have, in fact, acknowledged and admitted the share and rights of

Respondent No. 1.

5.8)          The opinion of the Handwriting Expert is not conclusive evidence,


                                                                          8/19
SAGAR MAGAR                                                              WP-779-2019.doc



and it can only be taken for the purpose of corroboration. That, the present

criminal offences are prima facie made out, inasmuch as false, forged and

fabricated documents have been prepared by the Petitioners to grab the share,

right, title, and interest of Respondent No. 1 in the ancestral property. That,

the said false and forged documents have been used as genuine documents

against Respondent No. 1.

5.9)          That, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned

Order. That, the Petitioners will have an opportunity to defend themselves at

the trial by leading evidence.

6)            Ms. Manisha Tidke, learned APP for the Respondent-State

adopted the arguments advanced by the Mr. Ashutosh V. Singh, learned

Advocate for the Respondent No. 1.

7)            Perused the entire record. Perusal of the complaint would indicate

that the Petitioners and the Respondent No. 1, are real brothers. It is the case

of Respondent No. 1 that, the flour mill known as ‘Singh Flour Mill’ and the

plot adjoining the flour mill were allotted to his father in lieu of demolition of

their tabela in the said locality. That, after the death of the father on 3 rd May

2001, certain disputes arose between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 1. A

civil proceeding has been initiated by Petitioner No. 2 against Respondent

No.1. Summons were issued in the said civil suit by the City Civil Court. In the

said suit, annexed to the Plaint are the Power of Attorney, Affidavit and

Release Deed dated 20th December 2005, which according to the Respondent


                                                                             9/19
SAGAR MAGAR                                                           WP-779-2019.doc



No.1 are forged and prepared with the intention of grabbing Respondent

No.1's share in the properties. The contention of the Petitioners is that

Respondent No. 1 had executed the said documents in favour of the

Petitioners. Respondent No. 1 has stated that he tried to give complaints to

the concerned Police Authorities, but they refused to take cognizance. On the

basis of the said allegations and averments, Respondent No. 1 filed a

complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC. Pursuant to the said complaint,

an FIR came to be registered on 5th August 2006.

8)            On record is a statement of Mr. Ramanwal Jokhansingh, who was

the conductor of the flour mill. In the said statement the said Ramanwal

Jokhansingh, has specifically stated that there were disputes between the

Petitioners and Respondent No. 1 and, pursuant to discussions, a settlement

was arrived at. That, on 20 th December 2005, the General Power of Attorney

and Release Deed were prepared and executed, and the Petitioners and

Respondent No. 1 signed the said documents in presence of Mr. Ramanwal

Jokhansingh, who signed the said documents as a witness.

9)            Perusal of the Order dated 19th June 2017 would indicate that,

pursuant to the application under Section 156(3) and the Order dated 17 th

July 2006, M.E.C.R. No. 272 of 2006 came to be registered against the

Petitioners and other co-accused under Sections 406, 466, 467, 468, 506(II)

read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Order records that, on completion of the

investigation, a C-Summary Report was filed stating that the issues involved in


                                                                        10/19
SAGAR MAGAR                                                              WP-779-2019.doc



the case appeared to be of a civil nature. Upon a Protest Petition being filed,

the same was examined. The learned Magistrate considered the Release Deed,

Power of Attorney, Affidavit-cum-Undertaking dated 7 th February 2006, and

the copy of the Order dated 6th May 2017 passed in Suit No. 2696 of 2006

filed between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 1. The Order records the

submissions of Respondent No. 1 that, along with Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, he

is also one of the legal heirs of his father, Mr. Fauzdar Singh and that, despite

being one of the legal heir, he has been deprived of his legal rights on the

basis of the alleged forged documents. The Order specifically records that,

upon perusal of the report, evidence and documents on record, it appears that

the disputes involved are entirely civil in nature and that the issues of

inheritance, succession and rights to family property are involved. The City

Civil Court has correctly held that the Release Deed dated 20 th December

2005, being an unregistered document, cannot confer any rights or interest in

favour of the Petitioners and, similarly, nor can the right, title and interest of

Respondent No. 1 stand extinguished.

10)           The Order dated 19th June 2017 makes reference to the

Handwriting Expert's report, which categorically states that this signature on

the disputed documents and the specimen signature of Respondent No.1 are

of one and the same hand. After considering the aforesaid facts, the original

application, C-Summary Report, Protest Petition, evidence before process and

the Order of the City Civil Court, the Magistrate came to the conclusion that


                                                                           11/19
SAGAR MAGAR                                                                               WP-779-2019.doc



the essential ingredients required for the offences alleged are not made out. In

view of the said factual background, the Protest Petition was dismissed and

the C-Summary Report was accepted. By the Order dated 19 th June 2017, the

proceedings stood closed.

11)               Perusal of the opinion of the Handwriting Expert dated 13 th April

2009, issued by the Additional Chief State Examiner of Documents, CID, State

of Maharashtra, Mumbai, indicates that the following opinion is given.

                                                  OPINION
              “1. The Pencil-encircled English signatures marked as Exs.Q-1 to Q-17
              and those on the Exs. B-1 to B-6 & N-1 to N-7 are written by one and
              the same hand.
              2. The pencil-encircled English signatures marked as Exs.Q-19, Q-21,
              Q-23, Q-25, Q-27, Q-29, Q-31, Q-33 & Q-35 and those on the Exs. E-1
              to E-6 is written by one and the same hand.
              3. The pencil-encircled Balbodh signatures (in writing form) marked
              as Exs Q-36 & Q-38 when compared with those on the Exs. P-1 to P-6
              shows similarities which are indicating of their common authorship.
              4. The pencil-encircled English signatures marked as Exs. Q-37 & Q-
              39 and those on the Exs. F-1 to F-6 are written by one and the same
              hand.
              5. The identifying characteristics features of the pencil encircled
              signatures on the form of initials marked as Exs. Q-18, Q-20, Q-22, Q-
              24, Q-26, Q-28, Q-30, Q-32, Q-34 being limited in extent for
              examination,       do      not      provide      adequate     identifying
              characteristics/features for comparison with those on the Ex.D-1 to D-6.
                   As such, because of absence of adequate identifying characteristics
              data for comparison, it has not been made possible to read any definite
              opinion as regards the identity or otherwise of the pencil-encircled
              signatures (in the form of initials) marked as Exs. Q-18, Q-20, Q-22, Q-
              24, Q-26, Q-28, Q-30, Q-32 & Q-34 when compared with those on the
              Exs. D-1 to D-6.”



12)               Prima facie, it appears that the Sessions Court has misdirected

itself in concluding that the Handwriting Expert's opinion obtained by the


                                                                                            12/19
SAGAR MAGAR                                                                               WP-779-2019.doc



Police Investigating Officer is inconclusive. Perusal of the Handwriting Expert's

opinion, in respect of Respondent No. 1, prima facie and clearly indicates that

the signatures marked as Q-1 to Q-7 and those on Exhibits B-1 to B-6 and N-1

to N-7 are written by one and the same hand. There is no doubt in respect of

the signatures of Respondent No. 1, which are the main crux of the matter.

13)               The Revision Application having been filed, the learned Sessions

Judge, while entertaining the application under the revisional jurisdiction,

concluded that the Handwriting Expert's opinion was inconclusive. A further

reason given by the Revisional Court is that, the Order dated 19 th June 2007 is

a non-speaking Order. The Sessions Court in paragraph 8, has concluded as

under:-

              “8. ….However, the dispute brought by the applicant before the learned
              Magistrate was not regarding his right to the property, its devolution or
              partition as observed by the learned Magistrate. Rather, it was
              regarding preparation of false Power-of-Attorney and release-deed.
              Hence, I am of view that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is in
              ignorance of the fact of the case.”

14)               In my considered opinion, the Sessions Court, in its limited

revisional jurisdiction went ahead to appreciate the entire evidence while

recording that the Respondent No. 1 has raised the question as to why another

Release Deed, for a consideration of around Rs. 18,00,000/-, was executed

after the intervention of the Police, if the disputed Release Deed had already

been executed on 20th December 2005. The Sessions Court has observed that

these circumstances have not been discussed by the Magistrate. I am of the



                                                                                            13/19
SAGAR MAGAR                                                            WP-779-2019.doc



prima facie opinion that what the Sessions Court has done is to re-appreciate

the entire evidence, which is not permissible under Section 397 in the exercise

of revisional jurisdiction under the CrPC.

15)           Based on the said findings, the Sessions Court has set aside the

Order dated 19th June 2017 and directed the Magistrate to hear Respondent

No. 1 afresh, consider the Police Report afresh, and pass a speaking Order.

Surprisingly the Petitioners were directed to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/-, when

in fact the Revision has been filed by the Respondent No. 1. What was

challenged was judicial Order. There is no reason given or discussed for such a

direction being issued. It shows total non-application of mind and an act of

exceeding its limited jurisdiction.

16)           Perusal of the record would indicate that, the dispute relates to

the question of inheritance and succession of family property. Prima facie, it

appears that the dispute is, in essence, a civil dispute arising out of the

question of succession and distribution of ancestral/family properties. The

other proceedings are off shoots of the said inheritance/succession dispute. It

is also necessary to keep in mind that the FIR was registered pursuant to a

Order passed under Section 156(3) of CrPC. The Respondent No. 1 has also

initiated proceedings in respect of Section 138 of the NI Act for the post

dated cheques which were issued pursuant to the settlement arrived at

between the parties. Perusal of the Handwriting Expert's Report, which forms

part of the investigation papers, would prima facie indicate that the signatures


                                                                         14/19
SAGAR MAGAR                                                                           WP-779-2019.doc



on the documents in question and the natural signatures of the Respondent

No. 1 clearly indicate that the same have been signed by the same hand.

17)            The Sessions Court, by the impugned Order, has clearly exceeded

its revisional jurisdiction in minutely appreciating the entire evidence and

interfering with the Order only because, according to the Sessions Court,

another possible view could have been taken. In fact, this Court is of the

opinion that the Magistrate Court has passed the Order after applying his

judicial mind and after giving appropriate and apt reasons for such application

of mind. The Revisional Court has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction and has

incorrectly set aside the Order dated 19th June 2017. A prima facie incorrect

finding in respect of the handwriting expert report has been recorded. No

fault can be found with the observations that unregistered documents do not

create any right in immovable property or that by the said documents the

rights of the parties cannot be affected as the documents are unregistered

documents. Civil proceedings are already filed and pending. Orders have been

passed in the civil proceedings.

18)            A useful reference can be made in the following Judgments.

18.1)          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh

Chander, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has observed that:-

              “12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call
              for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of
              satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or
              order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a
              patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a


                                                                                          15/19
SAGAR MAGAR                                                                           WP-779-2019.doc



              well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to
              scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of
              careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one
              looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the
              revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under
              challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the
              provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence,
              material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised
              arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are
              merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own
              merits.
              13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of
              the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a
              routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be
              against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in
              mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead
              to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as
              to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance
              with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise
              of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within
              the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much
              advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC.
              ….
              18. It may also be noticed that the revisional jurisdiction exercised by
              the High Court is in a way final and no inter court remedy is
              available in such cases. Of course, it may be subject to jurisdiction of
              this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Normally, a
              revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law.
              However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find
              place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically,
              the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done and there
              is no abuse of power by the court. Merely an apprehension or
              suspicion of the same would not be a sufficient ground for
              interference in such cases.
              20. The jurisdiction of the court under Section 397 can be exercised
              so as to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of an order
              passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as the case may be.
              Though the section does not specifically use the expression “prevent
              abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
              justice”, the jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very limited one. The
              legality, propriety or correctness of an order passed by a court is the
              very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 but
              ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could
              be exercised where there is palpable error, non-compliance with the
              provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the

                                                                                          16/19
SAGAR MAGAR                                                                            WP-779-2019.doc



                judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. On the other hand, Section
                482 is based upon the maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit,
                concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest i.e. when the
                law gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things without
                which the thing itself would be unavoidable. The section confers very
                wide power on the Court to do justice and to ensure that the process
                of the court is not permitted to be abused.”

18.2)            The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manendra Prasad

Tiwari v. Amit Kumar Tiwari, reported in (2022) 20 SCC 757 has observed

that:-

              25. Section 397CrPC vests the court with the power to call for and
              examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying
              itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made
              in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or
              an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the
              proceeding.
              26. It is useful to refer to judgment of this Court in Amit Kapoor v.
              Ramesh Chander [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 :
              (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986] , where the scope of
              Section 397CrPC has been succinctly considered and explained. Paras
              12 and 13, respectively, are as follows : (SCC p. 475)
                      “12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the
                      power to call for and examine the records of an inferior
                      court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality
                      and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a
                      case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent
                      defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a
                      well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the
                      court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it
                      bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in
                      accordance with law. If one looks into the various
                      judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional
                      jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under
                      challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance
                      with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based
                      on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial
                      discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are
                      not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each
                      case would have to be determined on its own merits.
                     13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional
                     jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and
                     cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the
                     inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an

                                                                                           17/19
SAGAR MAGAR                                                                          WP-779-2019.doc



                  interim or interlocutory order. The court has to keep in
                  mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself
                  should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the court is
                  dealing with the question as to whether the charge has
                  been framed properly and in accordance with law in a
                  given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of
                  its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls
                  within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge
                  is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under
                  CrPC.”


18.3)         The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance

Co. Ltd. v. Krishna Kumar Pandey, reported in (2021) 14 SCC 683 has

observed that:-

                  “7. The scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court (or
                  Sessions Court) under Section 397CrPC, is limited to the extent
                  of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of
                  any finding, sentence or order passed by an inferior court. The
                  Revisional Court is entitled to look into the regularity of any
                  proceeding before an inferior court. As reiterated by this Court
                  in a number of cases, the purpose of this revisional power is to
                  set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law.”

19)           As noted hereinabove the main issue is that of distribution of an

entitlement to the ancestral properties. The said issue is civil issue and can be

sorted out by filing appropriate civil proceedings if advised and in accordance

with law. Considering the peculiar facts of the present case, the handwriting

experts opinion and the reasoning of the Order dated 19 th June 2017, this

Court is of the opinion that the Sessions Court had exceeded in exercising its

revisional jurisdiction.

20)           It is settled law that, revisional jurisdiction can be exercised and

invoked to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the Order. That

is the very crux and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction. The object and

                                                                                         18/19
                      SAGAR MAGAR                                                                 WP-779-2019.doc



                      purpose of the revisional jurisdiction to set right a patent illegality or

                      perversity in the Order. Mere apprehension that a different view is possible

                      cannot be a ground to interfere with a otherwise well reasoned order or a

                      order which is well founded on the facts of the matter and the law. As noted

                      hereinabove the Order dated 19th June 2017 has considered all the facts,

                      investigation papers, C-Summary Report, ground of the Protest Petition and

                      evidence on record. The Order has also considered hand writing experts

                      report.

                      21)            Considering the aforenoted facts and circumstances, and more

                      particularly the peculiar facts of the present case, I find it necessary, in the

                      interest of justice and to secure the ends of justice, to quash and set aside the

                      Order dated 17th January 2019 in Criminal Revision Application No. 649 of

                      2017.

                      22)           In view thereof, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘b’.



                                                                (RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.)

SAGAR
SANTOSH
MAGAR
Digitally signed by
SAGAR SANTOSH
MAGAR
Date: 2026.10.05
21:20:47 +0530




                                                                                                    19/19