Ashok Gulabrao Bondre v. Vilas Madhukarrao Deshmukh

Court

Supreme Court of India

Decided

12 April 2023

Case no.

Crl.A. No.-001931-001931 - 2011

Bench

B.R. Gavai, Sanjay Karol

Facts

• The appellant filed a complaint alleging that the respondents committed forgery by preparing false documents (personal recognizance and surety bonds) in a criminal case against him.
• The complaint was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate on November 6, 2004.
• The appellant filed a revision petition, which led to the Additional Sessions Judge stating that the complaint could not be filed without the written permission of the concerned court.
• The Additional Sessions Judge acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations and directed that a preliminary inquiry be conducted if the appellant filed an application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.
• The appellant's subsequent application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was rejected by the High Court, leading to the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Arguments

Petitioner Arguments

• The appellant argued that the alleged forgery occurred prior to the proceedings and thus the bar under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. did not apply.
• He relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in
  to support his position that the court should consider the merits of the forgery allegations.
• The court addressed these arguments by noting that the appellant had already accepted the Revisional Court's order and filed an application under Section 340, which rendered the appeal somewhat academic.

Respondent Arguments

• The respondents contended that the appellant had accepted the Revisional Court's order and that the matter was now academic due to the filing of the application under Section 340.
• They argued that the appeal should not proceed as it did not raise any substantial legal question.
• The court acknowledged these points, indicating that the procedural acceptance by the appellant limited the scope of the appeal.

Precedents considered

• The court cited
  , emphasizing the need for a proper consideration of the merits of the allegations of forgery. However, it noted that the High Court had not adequately considered this precedent.

Legal principles

• The court considered the application of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., which restricts the filing of complaints for certain offenses unless made by the court.
• The court also referenced Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., which allows for a preliminary inquiry into offenses committed in the course of judicial proceedings.

Decision and reasoning

Rationale

The court reasoned that since the appellant had already accepted the Revisional Court's order and filed the necessary application, the appeal was largely academic. The court expressed concern that proceeding with the appeal would not serve any practical purpose, as the appellant had the opportunity to pursue the matter through the appropriate channels.

Outcome

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, indicating that the matter was academic due to the appellant's acceptance of the Revisional Court's order and the filing of an application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. The court did not provide specific instructions for the appeal process, as the matter was resolved at this stage.

Conclusion

This judgment underscores the importance of procedural compliance in criminal matters and highlights the court's reluctance to engage in academic disputes. It reinforces the principle that once a party accepts a court's order and takes appropriate steps, further appeals may not be warranted.

Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website (PDF)