HANUMANT DINKAR ARJUN vs. SURESH R.ANDHARE

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.25  OF 2009 Shri Hanumant Dinkar Arjun            ….Appellant(s) VERSUS Shri Suresh R. Andhare & Anr.  ….Respondent(s)                   J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and   order   dated   15.07.2008   passed   by   the   High Signature Not Verified Court   of     Judicature   at   Bombay   in   Criminal Digitally signed by ASHOK RAJ SINGH Date: 2019.05.03 16:45:12 IST Reason: Revision Application No.309 of 2008 whereby the 1 High   Court   dismissed   the   criminal   revision application   filed   by   the   appellant   (complainant) herein. 2. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of this appeal, which involves a short point. 3. The appellant filed a complaint under Sections 166,   167,   201   to   204   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code, 1860   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “IPC”)   read   with Section   25   of   the   Bombay   Police   Act,   1951   (for short,   “BP   Act”)  against   respondent   No.   1   herein before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indapur.  4. This complaint was filed on the basis of certain st adverse   observations   made   by   the   1   Additional Sessions   Judge,   Baramati   in   his   order   dated 26.02.2003  passed   in  Session  Case   No.  99/2000 against   respondent   No.1   by   which   four   accused persons were convicted for commission of offence punishable   under   Section   302/34   IPC   and 2 sentenced   them   to  undergo  imprisonment   for   life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/­ each. 5. According to the appellant, in the light of the certain adverse observations made in the said order by   the   Additional   Sessions   Judge   against respondent   No.1­Sub­Inspector   of   Police,   who investigated the said case, a   prima facie   case for initiating criminal action against him is made out. 6. The   Courts   below,     however,   declined   this prayer made by the appellant and the High Court by the impugned order upheld the order declining the prayer giving rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave in this Court by the appellant­ complainant. 7.    It is not  disputed by the  parties  that the accused persons have filed criminal appeal in the High Court against the order dated 26.02.2003 and the same is pending in the High Court. 3 8. If that be so, then, in our opinion, the order dated   26.02.2003,   which   is   the   basis   of   the complaint in question, is   in the criminal sub judice appeal. 9. In other words, when the order, which is the foundation for filing the complaint in question itself is  sub judice , the appellant is required to await the final  outcome  of  the  criminal  appeal filed  by  the accused persons. 10. It is   for   this  reason,   we  are  not  inclined   to entertain   this   appeal   and   while   disposing   of   the same grant liberty to the appellant to move afresh for   raising   his   grievance   in   question   depending upon the outcome of the criminal appeal filed by the accused   persons   against   the   order   dated 26.02.2003.  4 11. We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, which is subject matter of the complaint. 12. With   these   observations,   this   appeal   stands disposed of finally.                                              .………...................................J.                                     [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                         …...……..................................J.                     [DINESH MAHESHWARI] New Delhi; May 03, 2019 5