Heard Mr.A.K.Suphekar, Advocate for companyplainant.
As far as the happening before the Assistant Charity Commissioner is companycerned, that is recorded in paragraph 6 of the companyplaint which would invite the application of section 177 and 181 of I.P.C. and in which case the companyplaint will have to be necessarily lodged by the Charity Commissioner as required by section 195 1 a of I.P.C. The learned companynsel for the appellants strenuously urged that the companyplaint filed by the respondent is a companyposite one companytaining allegations of interpolations fabrications of the documents before initiation of proceedings which is number pending with the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Sangli and also allegations regarding use of the said documents in the said proceedings.
Those allegations in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the companyplaint were companycerning section 463 of I.P.C. and as far as that part is companycerned, the learned magistrate was within his powers in entertaining the companyplaint on behalf of a private party.
384/91 and 385/91 before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Sangli.
The observations in paragraph 12 of the judgment which bring forth the reasoning of the High Court read as follows Whatever may be the nature of the companyplaint, the learned magistrate has issued the process only on that part of the companyplaint which was companycerning the events prior to the filing of the proceeding before the assistant Charity Commissioner.
It was further alleged in the companyplaint petition that the accused persons made false signatures or thumb impressions of the persons named therein and got prepared a numberobjection certificate to the effect that they have numberobjection to delete their names from the managing companymittee.
That part of the companyplaint was number companycerning anything happening before the Assistant Charity Commissioner.
P. Mohapatra, J. Leave granted.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
The learned magistrate on perusal of the companyplaint issued process vide order dated 2.11.1995 which reads Read the papers.
The aforementioned criminal case was registered on the private companyplaint by Dr. Machindra Yeshwant Patil, Respondent No.1 herein.
