Criminal Writ Petition No. 1072 of 2016. Case: Omprakash and Ors. Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Writ Petition No. 1072 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: R.N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel instructed by Vikram R. Dhorde, Advocate and For Respondents: A.B. Girase, Public Prosecutor |
| Judges | S.S. Shinde and K.K. Sonawane, JJ. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 154,36, 482; Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Sections 100, 101 |
| Judgement Date | May 05, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
S.S. Shinde, J.
-
Heard.
-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties.
-
Brief facts leading for filing the petition are as under:
It is the case of the petitioners that the various litigations are pending between the petitioner No. 13 and respondent No. 3. The details of the said litigation, outcome of the said litigation and also the actions taken against respondent No. 3 for recovery of loan, has been extensively stated in the Writ Petition. The main grievance of the petitioners is that, (a) despite all these litigation mentioned in the Writ Petition, and various orders passed by the authorities issuing certificates under Section 101, which has become final, (b) challenging the auction proceedings, which has become final, (c) challenging the fixation of upset price, which has become final, (d) challenging the granting of 'R' certificates under Section 100, which has also become final, and (e) pendency of the Writ Petition No. 3512/2014 in the High Court, respondent No. 3 is so influential that, he made application to respondent No. 2 Deputy Commissioner of Police, Circle-2, Aurangabad City making certain allegations, and respondent No. 2 high handedly and mala fidely without authority issued notice dated 02.08.2016 to petitioner No. 18, who is Government Valuer and has submitted the valuation report to the District Deputy Registrar for fixing upset price.
-
Learned senior counsel invites our attention to the fact that, the loan amount in crores of rupees was borrowed by respondent No. 3 from petitioner No. 13 - Samata Urban Credit Co-operative Bank in the year 2008 and 2009, and due to non-payment of such huge amount, the petitioners approached to the various Forums including the High Court. He invites our attention to the pleadings in the petition and submits that, in spite of various orders passed by the authorities issuing certificates under Section 101, which has become final, the auction sale has also become final, the fixation of upset price, which has also become final, the granting of 'R' certificates under Section 100, which has become final and even Writ Petition No. 3512/2014 filed in the High Court is pending, respondent No. 2 has courage to entertain the complaint filed by respondent No. 3. Learned senior counsel submits that, when the civil litigation is pending between the parties, respondent No. 2 had no business to issue notice to petitioner No. 18 or any other Government Authorities in relation to such civil dispute pending between petitioner No. 13 and respondent No. 3. He pressed into service exposition of law by the Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [2015] 6 SCC 287 and submits that, the Supreme Court has deprecated practice of taking recourse to criminal law, when the dispute is arising out of the civil transactions and same is of civil in nature. He invites...
To continue reading
Request your trial