Interim Order 3

Order Details: Order
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
44TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
C.C.No.826/MISC/2018
ORDER PASSED ON APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE (EXH.NO.08)
(Passed on 27/05/2025)
Shri Ramesh Nainani against whom the informant namely
Pratima Rai had lodged the FIR No.144/2018 on 07/04/2018 for the
offence punishable under section 354(A) and 509 of Indian Penal Code,
has filed this application for discharge from the said FIR on the ground
that the concerned Police Station submitted ‘B’ summary against him
before this Court and thereby stated that there is no sufficient evidence
available against him in the said offence (FIR No.144/2018). According
to him, the informant had registered the false FIR against him and he is
facing financial and emotional distress. Hence, he prayed to discharge
him.
2. Per contra, the informant opposed the application on the
ground that the police did not carry out the investigation in the said
offence and she has filed the protest petition before this Court.
According to her, the investigation is incomplete and therefore, this
application is liable to be rejected.
3. Having heard the learned advocates for both the sides, I
perused the record.
4. It is pertinent to note here that the informant namely
Pratima Rai filed the protest petition before this Court on 09/08/2019.
The learned predecessor of this Court has passed the order on
06/10/2022 on the protest petition. The learned predecessor allowed
the same and the ‘B’ summary filed by the concerned Police Station
Versova in FIR No.144/2018 is rejected. By way of this order, the
-- 1 of 2 --
2
learned predecessor of this Court directed the concerned Police Station
to conduct further investigation and file the report accordingly.
5. The concerned Police Station filed the report on
09/07/2024. On the very day i.e. on 09/07/2024, the applicant
(Ramesh Nainani) sue moto appeared before this Court and sought the
permission to participate in this matter. His application was allowed.
However, the informant Pratima Rai has challenged the order dated
09/07/2024 before the Hon’ble City Civil & Addl. Session Judge,
Dindoshi, Mumbai by filing Criminal Revision Application. Thus, the
participation of the applicant in this proceeding is under challenge and
the Criminal Revision Petition (201 of 2024) is still subjudice. In such
circumstances, the application for discharge of applicant (Ramesh
Nainani) is not tenable.
6. Apart from this, having gone through the report filed by the
concerned Police Station on 09/07/2024 and the documents placed on
record, this Court directed the informant to adduce the evidence. Thus,
the protest petition filed by the informant is converted into private
complaint case. In such circumstances, in my opinion, unless and until,
the said revision petition and the private complaint is adjudicated or
decided, the applicant cannot be discharged from the said FIR no.144/
2018. Hence, I pass the following order:
ORDER
The application stands rejected.
Sd/-
( Sujitkumar C. Tayde )
Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Date :- 27/05/2025 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 2 of 2 --