cwp-195.25 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.195 OF 2025 Shri Rajabhau S/o Shriram Phad, Age-43 years, Occu: Agri.,/Social Worker, R/o-Kanherwadi, Taluka-Parali Vaijanath, District-Beed. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Superintendent of Police, Beed, Taluka and District-Beed, 3) The Police Inspector, Police Station, Bardapur, Taluka-Ambejogai, District-Beed. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. A.D. Khedkar Advocate h/f. Mr. S.R. Sapkal Advocate for Petitioner. Ms. P.R. Bharaswadkar, A.P.P. for Respondents. ... CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 18th MARCH, 2025 ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] : 1. Present Writ Petition has been filed for following reliefs:- 2025:BHC-AUG:9799-DB cwp-195.25 2 “[B] To direct respondent No.3 to register an offence on the basis of complaint dated 23.09.2024 and 14.01.2025 filed by the petitioner by issuing writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature.” 2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. A.D. Khedkar holding for learned Advocate Mr. S.R. Sapkal for petitioner and learned APP Ms. P.R. Bharaswadkar for respondents. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that in the compliant that he has filed with Police Inspector, Bardapur Police Station, Taluka-Ambajogai, District-Beed, on 23rd September 2024, he had made allegations against the chairman and others of Jagmitra Sugar Mills Private Limited, at village Pusa, Taluka- Ambajogai, District-Beed. In 2010, the then Minister, Mr. Dhananjay Munde and others were taking active part in raising sugar factory and were insisting upon the petitioner that he should invest an amount which will give him financial benefits and then he would also be taken as director of the sugar factory. Therefore, time and again the petitioner had invested an amount cwp-195.25 3 of Rs.75,00,000/- in the capital. It was promised that he would be given shares equivalent to the said amount. Thereafter it was told to the petitioner that the capital that was raised, was to the extent of Rs.1,12,71,990/-. The bank accounts were opened and the steps were taken to raise and construct the sugar factory. However, since last 9 to 10 years, the chairman and directors of the sugar factory had not given any information as to whether there is any profit or loss. This information has been intentionally suppressed from the share holders. There is a terror of Mr. Dhananjay Munde and others in the area. Those persons have collected amount in crores of rupees and have not accounted for. False accounts have been drawn and the balance-sheet of the year 2015 has been shown. The amount so generated and suppressed, has been used by the then Minister for the purpose of contesting election. Mr. Dhananjay Munde and others have intentionally committed forgery in the documents and misappropriated crores of rupees. Though the Police had received the complaint dated 23rd September 2024, the First Information Report (for short “the FIR”) was not registered. Therefore, the petitioner had made complaint to the Superintendent of Police, District-Beed on 11th January 2025, but cwp-195.25 4 the cognizance has not been taken thereafter also and therefore, present Petition. 4. It was specifically asked to the petitioner’s Advocate that when exactly the petitioner realized that he has been defrauded or the offence has been committed by those accused persons, then there was no definite answer from the learned Advocate for the petitioner. When the legal aspect involved in the matter was pointed out, the Advocate for the petitioner has relied on the decision passed by the co-equal Bench in Criminal Writ Petition No.1309 of 2018, filed by the present petitioner himself against the State and others, wherein the then said Minister was also an accused. By order dated 10th June 2019, the co-equal Bench had directed the police authorities to register the FIR on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner. It is stated that it was regarding the cheating in respect of grabbing of Government land and converting it into non-agricultural use for starting private sugar factory. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further submits that respondent No.8 in the said Petition, Mr. Walmik Baburao Karad and another had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the said order passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.1309 of 2018, by filing Petition for cwp-195.25 5 Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5287 of 2019 and by order dated 8th December 2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court refused to interfere and then permission was granted to the petitioners therein to withdraw the Special Leave Petition. Therefore, according to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, directions can be issued for registration of the FIR on the basis of complaint. It was then asked by this Court, as to why exhaustive complaint / FIR was not filed at that time, or any writ petition was not preferred at that time itself when according to the petitioner there is suppression by the chairman and directors in respect of the sugar factory’s affair for more than 9 to 10 years. The learned Advocate for the petitioner tried to submit that he has not taken instructions from his client on this point. 5. It is to be noted that as per the petitioner, he had filed the written complaint with the Police on 23rd September 2024 and when no action was taken, he made a complaint about the same to the Superintendent of Police on 11th January 2025. Thus, if the petitioner had taken the steps as per the decision in Priyanka Srivastava and another vs. State of UP and another, 2015 (6) SCC 287, then alternate remedy available for him is to approach the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 156(3) cwp-195.25 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no explanation in the entire Petition as to why the petitioner had not approached the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Now, he wants to rely on the order passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.1309 of 2018, which was then confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, in respect of this, we would like to say that the petitioner is not then explaining, as to why he had filed the written complaint after the period of 9 to 10 years, or as to why he had not filed any writ petition along with Criminal Writ Petition No.1309 of 2018. If the transaction is in respect of the same sugar factory and within the knowledge of the petitioner, then his silence for 9 to 10 years is required to be considered with suspicion. With some ulterior motive then the petitioner is now coming before this Court. He cannot be therefore, allowed to rely on the decision of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.1309 of 2018. 6. Here, the petitioner prays for registration of the FIR, however, we would like to rely on Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2008 (2) SCC 409, which was then followed in T.C. Thangaraj vs. V. Engammal & others, 2011(12) SCC 328, Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and cwp-195.25 7 others, 2016(6) SCC 227 and M. Subramaniam and others vs. S. Janaki, 2020(16) SCC 728. In Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others, (supra), a note has been taken of the decision in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (supra), wherein it has been observed that: “ If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned Under Section 156(3) CrPC. If such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter.” 7. In Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others, (supra), it is then specifically observed that:- “ We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case because what we have found in this Country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation.” . It has been further observed that:- cwp-195.25 8 “ We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the concerned Magistrate Under Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation.” 8. Note of Ramesh Kumari vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and others, (2006) 2 SCC 677, was taken in T.C. Thangaraj vs. V. Engammal & others, (supra) and it has been held that the two- Judge Bench decision in Ramesh Kumari vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and others, (supra) will have to be now read in the light of the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others, [(2010) 3 SCC 571, and then in T.C. Thangaraj vs. V. Engammal & others, (supra), the decision in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (supra) was relied upon. 9. Recently, in Ranjit Singh Bath and another vs. Union Territory Chandigarh and another, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 329 (Criminal Appeal No.4313 of 2024, decided on 6th March 2025 by cwp-195.25 9 the Hon’ble Supreme Court), it has been observed that, “Before a complainant chooses to adopt a remedy under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, he must exhaust his remedies under sub-Sections (1) and (3) of Section 154 of the CrPC and he must make those averments in the complaint and produce the documents in support.” The law laid down in Priyanka Srivastava and another vs. State of UP and another, (supra) has been reiterated. 10. It will not be out of place to mention here that we had brought to the notice of the learned Advocate for the petitioner the above decisions in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (supra) etc., and thereafter we had permitted him to take instructions as well as go through the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even after taking note of all those decisions, instead of opting for liberty to approach the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by withdrawing this Writ Petition, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner wants order. We deprecate such practice. When the position of law is pointed out by the Court, then it is the Advocate who should take the decision and not to leave it to the client. It is for him to explain the law to the client as to what can happen in the matter. cwp-195.25 10 Unnecessary time of the Court is wasted in the present matter and therefore, we impose costs on the petitioner. 11. The Writ Petition stands dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), to be deposited by the petitioner with the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad, within one month. 12. Place the matter on 21st April 2025, for compliance. [SANJAY A. DESHMUKH] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE asb/APR25