Dr Kailas Laxman Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 5565 Bom

                                               2335.2012 Cri.Appln.odt
                                    1



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2335 OF 2016 


          Dr.Kailas Laxman Patil,  
          Age: 43 Years, Occu: Service,  
          R/o. Pimplesi, Tal. Dharangaon,  
          Dist.Jalgaon.                      APPLICANT 


                     VERSUS


          1.       The State of Maharashtra 
                   Through Police Station Officer,  
                   M.I.D.C. Police Station, Jalgaon 
                   Taluka & Dist. Jalgaon.  

          2.       Arjun Latkan Patil 
                   Age: 83 Years, Occu: Nil,  
                   R/o. At/Post Masawad, Jalgaon 
                   Tal. & Dist. Jalgaon.         RESPONDENTS


                               ...
          Mr.S.P.Brahme, Advocate for the applicant 
          Ms.S.S.Raut, APP for Respondent - State.  
          Mr.D.B.Shinde,   Advocate   holding   for 
          Mr.M.S.Deshmukh,   Advocate   for   respondent 
          no.2.  
                               ...

                             
                           CORAM: S.S.SHINDE & 
                                  S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.       

Reserved on : 31.07.2017 Pronounced on : 04.08.2017

2335.2012 Cri.Appln.odt

JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):

1. This Application under Section 482

of the Criminal Procedure Code is filed for

quashing and setting aside charge-sheet dated

11th August, 2015 in R.C.C. No.538/2015, which

is pending before the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Jalgaon, to the extent of the

applicant, bearing Crime No.273/2012

registered with M.I.D.C. Police Station,

Jalgaon, for the offence punishable under

Sections 463, 464, 465, 468, 471, 420 r/w.34

of the Indian Penal Code.

2. It is the case of the applicant that

the applicant is working as Deputy General

Manager in a Private Company at Jalgaon. He

was not interested in the administration of

the trust in question. He never actually

participated in the election, meetings and

submission of the change reports. Padmalay

2335.2012 Cri.Appln.odt

Shikshan Prasarak Mandal is a trust. It does

not have immovable properties. It does not

run any school or college. It has assets of

Rs.3000/- only. It was incorporated in 1992.

For 17 years, there was no election. The

founder body of the trust was comprising of

11 members. No elections were held

periodically. Many members were died.

Respondent no.2 was the Secretary.

3. It is further the case of the

applicant that respondent no.2 and accused

no.6 Gulabrao Patil took initiative in

holding the elections in the year 2008.

However, they are at the loggerhead.

Gulabrao Patil is the sitting M.L.A. The

allegations are against him and his brother

and son. No specific allegations were made

against the applicant. on 30.04.2008, the

elections were held and accused no.6 Gulabrao

Patil was elected as President. The applicant

was elected as member only. He is not the

2335.2012 Cri.Appln.odt

office bearers. Gulabrao Patil submitted

change report No.968/2012 along with

affidavits, consent letters and applications.

Change Report No.968/2012 was compromised in

Lok Adalat resultantly approving the change.

Appeal No.28/2012 was dismissed by the Joint

Charity Commissioner on 28th May, 2015. The

objectors have approached the higher Forum.

4. It is further the case of the

applicant that respondent no.2 lodged the

complaint alleging that the documents filed

along with change report were forged. The

signatures of the dead persons were made on

the documents. The affidavits were made by

impersonation. The applicant secured

anticipatory bail from this Court. On 11th

August, 2015, the charge-sheet was filed and

R.C.C.No.438/2015 is registered against the

applicant and other five persons for the

offence punishable under Sections 473, 474,

2335.2012 Cri.Appln.odt

475, 468, 471, 420-E r/w.34 of the Indian

Penal Code.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the

applicant submits that there are general

allegations in the FIR. There is no any

specific role attributed to the applicant.

Upon perusal of the charge-sheet, and its

accompaniments, there is no any specific role

or allegations against the applicant. The

change report was placed in Lok Adalat.

There are no allegations and incriminating

material against him to proceed for the

offence punishable under Sections 463, 464,

465, 468, 471, 422-E r/w.34 of the Indian

Penal Code. The entire charge-sheet does not

spell any overt act against the applicant

except the general allegations that the

offence was committed by the applicant along

with other accused persons. For the said

absurdity and vagueness the applicant is not

liable to undergo the ordeal of trial. The

2335.2012 Cri.Appln.odt

entire charge-sheet is in respect of the

commission of offence by accused no.6, who is

the President and other accused persons.

There is no specific role attributable to the

applicant. The applicant is not the active

member of the trust. He was not reporting

trustee of change report No.968/2012. The

documents filed along with the change report

were not prepared and executed by the

applicant. There is no prima facie evidence

to connect the applicant to the offence of

forgery.

6. The learned counsel appearing for

the applicant further submits that the

applicant is reputed persons and highly

educated. He is rendering services in a

Private Company and holds a responsible post.

The allegations against him are not plausible

at any stretch of imagination. The complaint

filed by respondent no.2 was not maintainable

2335.2012 Cri.Appln.odt

in view of allegations of perjury leveled in

the same. Respondent no.2 himself was

responsible for convening the meeting. The

complaint/FIR and charge-sheet as against the

applicant are inherently improbable and

smacks of mala fides. The charge-sheet cannot

be entertained in view of the civil

proceedings finalized by the Joint Charity

Commissioner and pending before Higher

Authorities. The present prosecution as an

abuse of process of law in the teeth of those

civil proceedings. In support of the

aforesaid contention, learned counsel

appearing for the applicant placed reliance

upon the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court

in the case of GHCL Employees Stock Option

Trust & Ors. Vs. India Infoline Limited &

Ors.1, and also the judgment of the Bombay

High Court Bench at Aurangabad in the case of

Rajeshwarrao s/o.Vishwanathrao Patil & Others

Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Others in 1 2013 [4] SCC 505

2335.2012 Cri.Appln.odt

Criminal Writ Petition No.507 of 2013,

decided on 22nd August, 2013.

7. On the other hand, learned APP

appearing for the respondent-State invites

our attention to the investigation papers,

and also the charge-sheet, and the fact that

already charge is framed. He submits that the

applicant is named by the informant in the

FIR. Along with accused no.6 Gulabrao Patil,

he was also instrumental in forging the

signatures of the persons, whose names are

mentioned in the FIR namely, Maharu Kashinath

Beldar and Tukaram Mohan Patil, though Maharu

Kashinath Beldar is not alive; their

signatures have been forged. The accused

conspired with each other and committed the

alleged offences. He submits that the

allegations in the FIR gets support from the

evidence collected by the Investigating

Officer. It is submitted that the applicant

filed Criminal Application No.4066/2014

2335.2012 Cri.Appln.odt

[Kailas Laxman Patil Vs.The State of

Maharashtra and another] taking exception to

the FIR, however, said application was

withdrawn, and consequently dismissed by this

Court. Therefore, learned APP submits that

the application may be rejected.

8. We have considered the submissions

of the learned counsel appearing for the

applicant and the learned APP appearing for

the respondent-State. With their able

assistance, we have carefully perused the

allegations in the FIR, charge-sheet and it's

accompaniment. It is not in dispute that the

charge is already framed by the trial Court.

It appears that charge-sheet is filed on 16th

June, 2016, and by this time the concerned

Court might have proceeded with the trial.

Upon careful perusal of the FIR, the name of

the applicant along with other accused is

mentioned. The allegations are serious in

nature inasmuch as though Maharu Kashinath

2335.2012 Cri.Appln.odt

Beldar was not alive, it appears that, on

20th April, 2008, the society issued agenda

and his forged signatures were shown on the

said agenda on 30th April, 2008 and general

body meeting was called, and fabricated and

forged proceedings were prepared by making

forged signatures of Maharu Kashinath Beldar

and Tukaram Mohan Patil. There is serious

allegation that on 29th June, 2012, in the

proceedings of Misc.Application No.968/2012

before the Civil Court at Jalgaon, in place

of informant some other persons appeared

posing that he is the informant, and

affidavit was prepared thereby making the

forged signature of the informant. It is

alleged in the FIR that the applicant and

other co-accused conspired with each other.

Upon careful perusal of the documents, and in

particular agenda of the meeting, the

applicant has signed the said acknowledgment

receipt of the agenda.

2335.2012 Cri.Appln.odt

9. In that view of the matter, in our

opinion, when the charge is framed and

applicant sought permission to withdraw the

Criminal Application No.4066/2014 [Kailas

Laxman Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra &

another], which was consequently allowed to

withdraw and dismissed as such. While

withdrawing the said application, the

applicant did not seek liberty to again

approach the Court. Be that as it may, we

have considered the contentions of the

applicant on merits, and in the light of the

charge-sheet and it's accompaniments, and

allegations in the FIR, and the fact that

charge is already framed; we are not able to

persuade ourselves to entertain the prayer of

the applicant, hence application stands

rejected.

10. The observations made herein above

are prima facie in nature, and confined to

the adjudication of the present application.

2335.2012 Cri.Appln.odt

The trial Court shall not get influence by

the observations made herein before during

the course of trial.

              [S.M.GAVHANE]             [S.S.SHINDE]
                  JUDGE                     JUDGE  
          DDC