High Court

Legal Reasoning

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD16 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3245 OF 2022Sarangdhar Murlidhar Lodhe,Age 51 yrs., Occ. Service,R/o Flat No.106, Happy Home,Anand Vihar, Gat No.33,Itkheda, Paithan Road, Aurangabad,Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. … Applicant… Versus …1The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Inspector,Police Station, Bidkin,Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. 2Shaikh Ahmed s/o Shaikh Usman,Age 49 yrs., Occ.R/o Saadat Nagar, Bidkin,Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. 3The Superintendent of Police,Aurangabad (Rural). 4Mahesh F. Ghuge,Age 39 yrs., Occ. Serviceas Police Sub Inspector,Police Station, Bidkin,Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. … Respondents...Mr. N.S. Ghanekar, Advocate for applicantMrs. R.P. Gour, APP for respondent Nos.1 and 3... 216_Cri.Appln_3245_2022CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE :11th JULY, 2025ORDER : ( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )1Present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure, 1973, initially for quashment of First InformationReport vide Crime No.371/2022 dated 12.08.2022 registered with PoliceStation, Bidkin, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad, for the offence punishableunder Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the IndianPenal Code, 1860 and later on by way of amendment for quashing theproceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.149/2024 pending before learnedJudicial Magistrate First Class, Paithan. 2Heard learned Advocate Mr. N.S. Ghanekar for applicant andlearned APP Mrs. R.P. Gour for respondent Nos.1 and 3. 3Learned Advocate for applicant has taken us through entirecharge sheet including First Information Report and submits that applicantwas serving as Village Development Officer from 02.01.2013 to 21.01.2014in said village Bidkin. Accused No.1 had filed documents including thereport of Circle Officer, Bidkin, to Tahsildar, Paithan, possession receipt, 316_Cri.Appln_3245_2022panchnama, Kabala Patrak in the office of Grampanchayat for takingnecessary entries. The matter was taken as per the procedure before themeeting of Grampanchayat on 02.01.2014. Resolution to that effect waspassed on the same day approving the act of taking entry on the basis ofKabala Patrak. Accordingly, he has taken the entry. He has not fabricatedany false documents. There is no evidence to show the participation of theaccused in the commission of offence. As a part of his duty as a Governmentservant he has taken the entry as per resolution that was passed. It is thenstated that offences were punishable with maximum sentence of seven years,still he came to be arrested on 12.08.2022 and no notice was given underSection 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, the arrestof applicant is in violation of directions given by Hon’ble Supreme Court inArnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar [2014 (8) SCC 273]. In fact, there was nonecessity to arrest him, but in order to cause harm to his reputation as well ascause his loss taking into consideration his capacity as Government servanthe was arrested. He was sent in Police Custody for three days, therefore, hisdetention has caused irreparable loss and great mental agony to applicant.Therefore, applicant is making two fold prayers i.e. quashment of theproceedings itself and respondents should be directed to give compensationof Rs.10,00,000/- to applicant. 416_Cri.Appln_3245_20224Learned APP strongly opposed the application in respect of bothprayers and submit that entire charge sheet is filed and it can be seen thatoriginal accused No.2 Shaikh Mohammad Shaikh Karim has cheated theGovernment by unauthorizedly encroaching upon the Government propertyby preparing false documents. He then filed application with presentapplicant and other Government offices to regularize those documents andhis ownership/possession. It is stated that informant is a Social Workerresiding in Bidkin. There is about 30 feet x 50 feet area next to Governmentwell on the Eastern side i.e. nearly 1500 square feet has been unauthorizedlyencroached upon by Shaikh Mohammad Shaikh Karim. When the informantmade inquiry, then he came to know that for the first time ShaikhMohammad’s name came to be entered in 2014 to Namuna No.8 by MutationEntry No.1673. While making application he had produced Kabala Patrakand possession receipt allegedly given by Sub Divisional Officer, Paithan,however, when he made inquiry with Sub Divisional Officer, it was told thatno Kabala Patrak filed from 2000 to 2021 is traceable. Therefore, it appearsthat Shaikh Mohammad Shaikh Karim with the help of some Agents from theoffice of Sub Divisional Officer and some other persons prepared thosedocuments. Now, the investigation is over and when inquiry was made withthe Grampanchayat members, they have stated that their signatures are notappearing on the resolution. That means many documents appeared to have 516_Cri.Appln_3245_2022been prepared falsely. Learned APP relies on the affidavit of PSI Mr. MaheshFulchand Ghuge from Police Station, Bidkin, wherein he has stated as to howthe investigation has been carried out by him. Involvement of the presentapplicant was found and, therefore, he had arrested. He denies that arrest ofapplicant is illegal. Though the additional affidavit-in-reply has been givenby applicant stating that he has not prepared the Mutation Entry on the basisof Kabala Patrak or other documents, but it was on the basis of resolution inthe Grampanchayat meeting. The Chief Executive Officer has conductedDepartmental Enquiry though his explanation has been accepted; yet, it is onthe administrative side, not on the criminal side. The Investigating Officerwill have to go by his own investigation and, therefore, no case is made outfor granting compensation also, much less to quash the proceedings. 5Here, it is to be noted that First Information Report has beenlodged by a Social Worker. On the basis of some inquiry, he had made,according to him, original accused No.2 has encroached upon 1500 squarefeet area from Bidkin and then in 2014 he made application for getting hisname mutated to the said land. It appears that in 2014 said ShaikhMohammad Shaikh Karim had given an application as per the contention ofpresent applicant as well as the Grampanchayat record and along with thesame he had produced certain documents. The Investigating Officer has 616_Cri.Appln_3245_2022collected the copies of documents which were allegedly produced by ShaikhMohammad Shaikh Karim. Those documents are stated to be forged. Thosedocuments include Kabala Patrak dated 20.05.2011, panchnama andpossession receipt. The office of Sub Divisional Officer has denied to haveissued such Kabala Patrak. Even it can be seen from another angle that theland was belonging to Government and, therefore, Sub Divisional Officercannot be considered as the appropriate officer, who could have given grantof the Government land under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Presentapplicant being the Gramsevak, in fact, ought to have verified the documentbefore placing it before the Grampanchayat. That appears to have not beendone. But he states that as per resolution in the meeting he has takenMutation Entry. Of course, there are statements of Waman Ramrao Satheand Harun Amar Jilani, who are members of Grampanchayat stating that nosuch subject appeared in the agenda of meeting dated 02.01.2014; yet, thefact is that taking the entry in the mutation register was the official duty ofpresent applicant. Now, in the entire charge sheet there is no evidence tosuggest that those documents were forged by present applicant. Thedocuments appears to have not been sent for Handwriting Expert’s opinionand the opinion of such expert has not been placed in the charge sheet.Therefore, when as against the present applicant, who is a Governmentservant, the prosecution intended to allege that he has taken certain entries 716_Cri.Appln_3245_2022which are illegal or on the basis of some forged documents in his officialcapacity, then the prosecution ought to have obtained sanction to prosecutethe applicant. In the entire charge sheet, which came to be filed on01.02.2024, copy of such sanction order has not been placed. It is not thecase of present respondents that concerned Magistrate has not taken thecognizance of offence yet. Immediately after the charge sheet was filed itappears to have been numbered and then as usual the cognizance has beentaken. When the applicant is a Government servant, the sanction underSection 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is mandatory. It was tried tobe submitted on behalf of respondents that preparation of false documentsand cheating cannot be the part of official duty of a Government servant. Inthis respect, we would like to submit that First Information Report has beenlodged by a third person in a sense he is a social worker. In order to prove anoffence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, preferably the FirstInformation Report should be by that person, who has been cheated. Now,here, the prosecution as well as the informant intends to portray that there ischeating of the Government. In this respect we would say that if thatresolution was passed in 2014 itself, then till filing of First InformationReport on 12.08.2022 why the Government had not taken step through itsappropriate officer to file a report stating that Government has been cheated.Any Grampanchayat member or official has also not come forward to file the 816_Cri.Appln_3245_2022report. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the cheating was that of StateGovernment and offence is made out against applicant. 6As regards offence under Section 465, 467, 468, 471 read withSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is now transpiring afterthe investigation that all those documents appeared to have been producedby Shaikh Mohammad before Grampanchayat for getting his name mutated,even otherwise also. At the cost of repetition, we would say that there is noevidence against applicant that he had prepared or assisted/aided originalaccused No.2 in preparation of these documents. 7Coming to the prayer regarding compensation, it is to be notedthat when accused was produced before the Magistrate, no objection appearsto have been raised regarding illegality in the arrest. The remand orderdated 13.08.2022 shows that present applicant was represented by acompetent Advocate and his statements have been recorded. The competentAdvocate had not raised any point in respect of illegality in the arrest,especially not adhering to the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar (supra). When theapplicant came to be arrested, at that time the offence that was registeredwas under Section 420, 465, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and the roleof present applicant was yet to be cleared. Therefore, now, in applicationunder Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he cannot be allowed to 916_Cri.Appln_3245_2022raise the point of illegal arrest and compensation. It appears thatDepartmental Enquiry was initiated against applicant and by order dated10.03.2023 the Block Development Officer has accepted the explanationgiven by applicant. The document has been produced on record, however,we find that it is one line statement in the communication by BlockDevelopment Officer to Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,Aurangabad. The ultimate order that was passed has not been producedalong with additional affidavit-in-reply. Learned Magistrate appears to haveconsidered all the legal requirements and then remanded the presentapplicant to Police Custody, which he has undergone. Therefore, no case ismade out for granting compensation, however, as aforesaid, the sanction toprosecute the applicant has not been obtained and still the cognizance hasbeen taken by learned Magistrate. The application deserves to be allowed byexercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Hence following order. ORDERi)Criminal Application stands partly allowed. ii)The proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.149/2024 pendingbefore learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paithan, Tq. Paithan, Dist. 1016_Cri.Appln_3245_2022Aurangabad, arising out of First Information Report vide Crime No.371/2022dated 12.08.2022 registered with Police Station, Bidkin, Tq. Paithan, Dist.Aurangabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468,471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, stands quashed andset aside as against applicant Sarangdhar Murlidhar Lodhe.iii)Prayer clause (F) seeking directions to respondents to givecompensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to applicant stands rejected. ( SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) agd