High Court · 2025
Legal Reasoning
cria-1679.231 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1679 OF 20231) Waman S/o Namdev Ghodke, Age-39 years, Occu:Service, R/o-Shirsal, Tq-Ausa, Dist-Latur,2) Balaji S/o Limbrajrao Yadav, Age-49 years, Occu:Agri., R/o-Ausa, Tq-Ausa, Dist-Latur. ...APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through P.I., Jilhapeth Police Station, Jalgaon,2) Kishor S/o Vilas Wankhede, Age-50 years, Occu:Service, R/o-Plot No.8, Shiv Colony, Undirkheda Road, Jalgaon, Tq. and Dist-Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Satish S. Manale Advocate for Applicants. Mr. V.K. Kotecha, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 – State. Mr. B.S. Shinde Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 14th JANUARY 2025DATE OF PRONOUNCING ORDER : 24th JANUARY 2025 cria-1679.232 ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :1.Present Application has been filed for quashment of theproceedings in R.C.C. No. 936 of 2022, pending on the file oflearned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon arising out of the FirstInformation Report (for short “the FIR”) vide Crime No. 13 of2018 registered with Jilha Peth Police Station, Jalgaon for theoffence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 466, 471, 209 readwith Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.Heard learned Advocate Mr. Manale for applicants, learnedAPP Mr. Kotecha for respondent No.1 – State and learnedAdvocate Mr. Shinde for respondent No.2.3.Learned Advocate for the applicants has taken us throughthe contents of the FIR and the entire charge-sheet. He submitsthat respondent No.2 has lodged the FIR in his official capacity.He is serving as Desk Officer, General AdministrationDepartment, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. The FIR states that theadvertisement for Class-IV posts i.e. peon in Zilla Parishad,Jalgaon, was given in 2012. The entire process was completed intwo steps i.e. firstly written examination and secondly viva voce. cria-1679.233The written examination was conducted at eleven centers andthen interviews were held. Appointment letters were given to theselected candidates on 7th February 2013. There was a wait listalso. Candidate at Serial No.1 from the wait list, MahaduShamrao Pawar (present accused No.1 as per charge-sheet)lodged the complaint stating that candidate at Sr. No.7 fromselect list - Balaji Limbrajrao Yadav (present applicant No.2 -original accused No.2) had produced false certificate ofearthquake affected person. Inquiry was held and notice wasissued to Balaji Yadav, as to why he should not be terminated.Instead of giving reply to the notice Balaji Yadav gaveresignation. Thereafter the wait list candidate at Serial No.1 -Mahadu Pawar approached this Court and submitted that heshould be appointed in place of Balaji Yadav. This Court gavedirections accordingly and appointment letter was issued toMahadu Pawar on 18th March 2016. After said Mahadu Pawarresumed duty, one Satish Tidke gave complaint application on12th July 2016 stating that Mahadu Pawar had not given thewritten examination personally but in his place a dummycandidate had given the examination. Again inquiry was held andit was found that some other person gave written examinationon the Hall Ticket Number of Mahadu Pawar. Therefore, the FIR cria-1679.234was lodged only against Mahadu Pawar. Name of presentapplicants was not appearing in the FIR. During the investigationit is then stated that these applicants have role to play and it ison the basis of statement of co-accused Mahadu Pawar. Entirematerial collected in the investigation does not show any roleagainst the applicants and therefore, it would be futile exerciseto ask the applicants to face the trial.4.Learned APP as well as learned Advocate for respondentNo.2 opposed the Application and they submit that the role hasbeen attributed to applicant Nos.1 and 2. Certainly, there isstatement of co-accused. But now the documents which havebeen seized in the matter are in the form of forged Hall Ticketsand those have been sent for handwriting expert’s opinion andtherefore, it would be then premature to quash the entireproceedings.5.It is to be noted that the case appears to have chequeredhistory in respect of the appointment to the posts of peon isconcerned. The advertisement was published on 9th April 2012and the list was prepared of the selected candidates and also ofthe wait list candidates. The selected candidates were asked toresume their duties by giving appointment letters on 7th February cria-1679.2352013. But then Mahadu Pawar, the candidate at Serial No.1 inthe wait list, made compliant that Balaji Yadav, the candidate atSerial No.7 in the select list, had given false document i.e. thecertificate of earthquake affected person. When the notice wasissued to Balaji Yadav, regarding why he should not beterminated, he resigned from the post and went away. It appearsthat Zilla Parishad had not taken that aspect to the logical end.No inquiry was made nor any FIR was lodged for submission ofthat alleged forged document. Resignation of Balaji Yadav wassimply accepted and he was allowed to go. At that time, at nopoint of time nor even in his Petition before this Court, originalaccused No.1 Mahadu Pawar had made a statement that presentapplicants had taken money from him i.e. to the extent ofRs.3,00,000/-, took his documents, made photo copies of thesame and then assured him that the job would be given to him.Now, after Mahadu Pawar was arrested and interrogated, then heis making such statements. Upon his statement, the presentapplicants have been made as an accused. Even now, as per thecharge-sheet, it is not clear as to which document is forgeddocument. Only on the basis of the statement of co-accused,which is per se inadmissible in the evidence, prosecution will notbe able to take the matter further as against the present
Decision
cria-1679.236applicants. It is not the case of the prosecution that one of thepresent applicant had appeared as dummy candidate for originalaccused No.1 Mahadu Pawar, though it appears that there isvideo recording and photographs available of the examination,on the basis of which conclusion has been drawn that originalaccused No.1 has not appeared in the examination. 6.Another point that is required to be considered is, at thetime of hearing of the Writ Petition filed by accused No.1 MahaduPawar, the Zilla Parishad had not taken the stand that somebodyelse had appeared in the examination in place of said petitioner.Only when said Satish Tidke had raised objection, it appears thatthe inquiry has been made. Statement of said Satish Tidke takenunder Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would showthat when he was proceeding from Ausa to Latur, two personssitting on the front seat were talking that Mahadu Pawar hassecured job in Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon without givingexamination. Then said Satish Tidke collected the documentsunder the Right to Information Act and also saw the videorecording taken at the time of examination and then made thecomplaint. Now, it appears that it is the say of the prosecutionthat in fact said Satish Tidke has been got up by the presentapplicants. But there is no evidence to that effect. Under the said cria-1679.237circumstance, which documents have been forged is not clearand only on the basis of statement of co-accused, which isper se inadmissible in evidence as per law, it would be unjust toask the applicants to face the trial and therefore, this is a fit casewhere we should exercise our inherent powers under Section482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, we pass followingorder:- O R D E R (I)The Application stands allowed. (II) The proceedings in R.C.C. No. 936 of 2022,pending on the file of learned Chief JudicialMagistrate, Jalgaon arising out of the FirstInformation Report vide Crime No. 13 of 2018registered with Jilha Peth Police Station, Jalgaon,for the offence punishable under Sections 420,465, 466, 471, 209 read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code, stands quashed and set asideas against applicant No.1 - Waman S/o NamdevGhodke and applicant No.2 - Balaji S/o LimbrajraoYadav. [ROHIT W. JOSHI] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGEasb/JAN25