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. 2026:BHC-AUG:38724 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