Tq Sakri, Dist. Dhule v. M. Jaware, APP for
Legal Reasoning
914WP284-23.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD 914 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 284 OF 20231. Bhilaji Shivram SoanwaneAge 68 years, Occu: Retired,R/o Dhamnar, Tq Sakri, Dist. Dhule... Petitioner VERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra2.Vasant Sonu Khornar (Dead)3.Hiraman Narayan PatilAge 67 years, Occu: Retired4. Daga Bhika Sonawane,Aged 68 years, Occu: Retired5. Avinash Ramdas KhairnarAge 34 years, Occu: ServiceAll R/o R/o Dhamnar, Tq Sakri, Dist. Dhule...Respondents...Mr. D. S. Bagul, Advocate for PetitionerMr. V. M. Jaware, APP for Respondent No.1-StateMr. Mohit S. Shah, Advocate for Respondent No.3Mr. S. V. Dixit, Advocate for Respondent No.4Mr. P. P. Mandlik, Advocate for Respondent No.5CORAM: Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.DATE:18.12.2024 1 of 8 (( 2 ))914WP284-23ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent ofboth the sides, it is heard finally at the stage of admission.2.By the present Petition, the Petitioner takes exception to theorder dated 08.10.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhulein Criminal Application No.68 of 2018 thereby affirming the order dated17.04.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakriin Criminal Misc. Application No.54 of 2018, whereby issuance ofsummons was denied against the present Respondent No.5 (accused)and the complaint was dismissed against him.3.The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitsthat the Petitioner/Complainant filed a Criminal Misc. Application No.54of 2018 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakri alleging that heis the Trustee of Yuva Sanghaytna, Dhamnar, registered under theprovisions of Bombay Public Trust Act. Said Education Trust runs a HighSchool. The Accused Nos.1 & 2 are self declared as President and VicePresident of the said Trust. The Accused No. 3 is a trustee of said trust.Since, 1982 no election has been conducted. The Accused No.4 isworking in the High School run by the Education Trust. The Accused No.1 is real uncle of the Accused No. 4. The Accused Nos. 1 to 3 appointed 2 of 8 (( 3 ))914WP284-23the Accused no. 4 by forging documents of the Trust and sanction for theAccused No.4 has been obtained on the basis of forged and fabricateddocuments. Therefore, the Accused persons have cheated the StateGovernment. So also, prior to appointment of the Accused No. 4 nopublic notice was published. Therefore, the Petitioner prayed forinvestigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. On 28.11.2015, the learned Magistrate passed an order anddirected inquiry under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., which resulted into C-summary report submitted by the Investigating Officer on 30.01.2017.Therefore, the complainant filed a protest Petition for acceptance of C-Summary report. Thereafter, the Petitioner/ Complainant adduced theevidence under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code. On12.02.2018, the learned Magistrate refused to accept the C-Summaryreport. 5. Accordingly, the Complainant/ Petitioner examined himselfunder Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code and also examinedanother witness, namely, Babulal Devram Wagh. After considering thematerial available on record, on 17.04.2018, the learned JudicialMagistrate First Class passed an order and issued process as against the 3 of 8 (( 4 ))914WP284-23Accused Nos. 1 to 3 only i.e., present Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4,however, refused to issue summons against the present RespondentNo.5, who is original Accused No.4- Teacher. 6.Being aggrieved by the said order, the present Petitioner/Original complainant filed Criminal Revision Application No.68 of 2018before the learned Sessions Court. On 08.10.2021, the learnedRevisional Court passed the impugned order and upheld the order dated17.04.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class.7.The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner/complainant canvassed in vehemence that the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4have manipulated the entire school report and the Accused No.4 securedjob on the basis of manipulated record. However, both the Courts failedto consider that no advertisement was published for filling up the post ofteachers and no resolution was passed by the Educational Trust. So also,enough material is available on record to prosecute the presentRespondent No.5/Ori. Accused No.4, however, both the Courts belowfailed to consider the same, hence, prayed for quashing and setting asidethe order.8.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent 4 of 8 (( 5 ))914WP284-23No.5 submits that in pursuance of advertisement published by VidhayakYuva Sanghatana Educational Trust, Respondent No.5 submitted hiscandidature and after selection process was over, he got selected andjoined on the post of Assistant Teacher. Therefore, the Respondent No.5has not committed any offence as alleged by the Petitioner/Complainant, hence, prayed for dismissal of the Petition. 9.Needless to say that the present Petitioner is the originalcomplainant in Criminal Misc. Application No.505 of 2015. ThePetitioner has stated that he is a Trustee of a Yuga Sanghatna, Dhamnar,the Public Trust registered under the provisions of Bombay Public TrustAct. The said Public Trust runs a High School at Dhamnar. ThePetitioner further alleged that the Accused Nos.1 and 2 declaredthemselves as President and Vice President of the said Trust. Theaccused No.3 is the Trustee. No election of Trust has been conductedsince 1982. The Accused No.4 who is appointed by the Accused Nos.1and 2, is the nephew of Accused No.1. The appointment of the AccusedNo. 4 i.e., Respondent No.5 is on the basis of forged documents andsanction was obtained fraudulently. Therefore, all the accused personscheated the Government and the Educational Trust. 5 of 8
Legal Reasoning
(( 6 ))914WP284-2310. On face of record, it appears that the present Petitioner/Complainant initially prayed for investigation under Section 156(3) ofCriminal Procedure Code for the alleged crime/offence. However, on thebasis of the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, C-Summaryreport has been accepted on 30.01.2017. Thereafter, the presentPetitioner/Complainant protested the C-Summary report. The Petitioneradduced evidence under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code. TheComplainant himself examined another witness Shri Babulal DevramWagh.11.The Petitioner stated that the Accused Nos. 1 to 3, withoutpublishing the advertisement to fill up the post of teachers, appointedthe Accused No.4 to the post of teacher in the school run by theEducation Trust. The Petitioner stated on oath that on 15.08.2008, theAccused Nos. 1 to 3 have shown about holding the meeting of ExecutiveCouncil of the Trust. Shri Babulal Devram Wagh has been shown as aproposer, though he was not present in the meeting. Further, thesignature of said Babulal Devram Wagh has been forged. Therefore, theaccused persons have committed offence under Sections 463, 405, 420,468, 471, 464 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6 of 8 (( 7 ))914WP284-2312.On 17.04.2018, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sakripassed an order and issued summons as against the Respondent Nos. 2to 4 /Original Accused Nos.1 to 3, however, the complaint has beendismissed as against the present Respondent No.5/ Accused No.4. 13.On 08.10.2021, the learned Revisional Court passed theimpugned order holding that certified copy of proceedings in inquiryApplication No.57 of 2011 was pending before the learned AssistantCharity Commissioner. The name Shri Babulal Devram Wagh appearingis a Member of the Educational Trust. However, Certified copies ofinquiry proceedings does not reveal that the Accused No.4/RespondentNo.5 is having any overt act in his appointment. 14.In order to constitute offences punishable under Sections465, 420, 468, 471, 464 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, it isnecessary to bring essential ingredients about preparing fraudulent,forged and fabricated documents. So also, the Respondent No.5 hassecured the job on the basis of said fabricated documents. On perusal ofthe complaint I have not come across and found anywhere in thecomplaint where the complainant has made any such averment that thepresent Respondent No.5/ Accused has made any alteration, addition or 7 of 8 (( 8 ))914WP284-23forged the documents which have been produced by him while securingappointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in the said EducationSociety. Therefore, I do not find that the impugned order passed by theRevisional Court affirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate isperverse, illegal, bad in law. Therefore, present Criminal Writ Petition isdismissed. Accordingly, Rule is discharged. [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] HRJadhav 8 of 8