Bombay High Court
Narayanrao S/O Ganpatrao Khedkar ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 21 November, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1
apl369.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Criminal Application (APL) No.369 of 2015
1. Narayanrao s/o Ganpatrao Khedkar,
Aged about 80 years,
Occupation - Agriculturist,
R/o Near Gurumandir Karanja (Lad),
Tq. Karanja (Kad),
Distt. Washim.
2. Vasantrao s/o Mahadeorao Sastakar,
Aged about 82 years,
Occupation - Agriculturist,
R/o Near Gurumandir, Karanja (Lad),
Ta. Karanja (Lad), Distt. Washim.
3. Umakant Puroshottam Pande,
Aged about 70 years,
Occupation - Retired,
R/o Near Gurumandir Karanja (Lad),
Tq. Karanja (Lad), Distt. Washim.
4. Digambar s/o Rajaram Barde,
Aged about 80 years,
Occupation - Agriculturist,
R/o Near Gurumandir, Karanja (Lad),
Tq. Karanja (Lad), Distt. Washim.
5. Vinayak s/o Digambar Sontakke,
Aged about 68 years,
Occupation - Agriculturist,
R/o Near Gurumandir, Karanja (Lad),
Tq. Karanja (Lad), Distt. Washim.
::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2017 01:51:26 :::
2
apl369.15.odt
6. Shripad s/o Yashwant Palsokar,
Aged about 70 years,
Occupation - Agriculturist,
R/o Near Gurumandir, Karanja (Lad),
Tq. Karanja (Lad), Distt. Washim.
7. Prakash Vasantrao Ghude,
Aged about 65 years,
Occupation - Agriculturist,
R/o Near Gurumandir, Karanja (Lad),
Tq. Karanja (Lad), Distt. Washim. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Police Station Officer,
Karanja (Lad), Tq. Karanja,
Distt. Washim.
2. Shekhar s/o Purushottam Kannao,
Aged about 60 years,
Occupation - Retired,
R/o Kannao Bhavan, Karanja,
Tq. Karanja, Distt. Washim.
3. Anant Gajanan Athalye,
Aged about 60 years,
Occupation - Retired,
R/o Kannao Mansion,
Karanja Lad, Distt. Washim.
4. Pramod s/o Narayanrao Dahihandekar,
Aged about 57 years,
Occupation - Agriculturist,
R/o Nanasaheb Dahihandekar Marg,
Ram Mandir Road,
::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2017 01:51:26 :::
3
apl369.15.odt
Karanja (Lad), Tq. Karanja Lad,
Distt. Washim.
5. Gajanan s/o Balalji Joshi,
Aged about 42 years,
Occupation - Agriculturist,
R/o Near Guru Mandir Karanja (Lad),
Tq. Karanja (Lad), Distt. Washim. ... Non-Applicants
Shri Firdos Mirza with Shri A.S. Deshpande, Advocate for
Applicants.
Shri V.P. Gangane, Additional Public Prosecutor for
Non-Applicant No.1.
Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for Non-Applicant Nos.2 to 5.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande & M.G. Giratkar, JJ.
Date of Reserving the Judgment : 14th November, 2017
Date of Pronouncing the Judgment: 21st November, 2017
Judgment (Per R.K. Deshpande, J.) :
1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure challenges the setting up of criminal law in
motion vide Crime No.72 of 2015 registered against the
applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465,
468, 408 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
apl369.15.odt
at the instance of the non-applicant Nos.2 to 5.
2. The applicants claim to be the office bearers of the
Trust, viz. "Shri Nrusinha Saraswati Swami Maharaj (Datta)"
having registration No.A-68 of Akola as per Change Report
No.425 of 1986 decided on 30-7-1986, which was accepted by
the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Akola, vide order
dated 25-10-2004. It is not in dispute that the proceedings
under Section 41D of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950
were instituted against the applicants for misappropriation of the
amount and the acts of malfeasance and misfeasance on
10-8-2012. The charges were framed on 9-9-2014 and the
trustees were placed under suspension on 1-12-2015. It is
informed that the order of suspension of trustees was kept in
abeyance.
3. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati,
passed a final order on 26-8-2016 removing all the applicants
from the Trust on the ground that the charges framed against
apl369.15.odt
them are proved in respect of malfeasance and misfeasance. It is
held in the order that the detailed investigation in respect of
misappropriation of funds can be made during the investigation
of criminal offence registered against the applicants and the
evidence on record before the learned Joint Charity
Commissioner is not sufficient to prove the charge of
misappropriation of funds.
4. It is informed that the order dated 26-8-2016 passed by
the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati, is the
subject-matter of challenge in Civil Misc. Judicial Case No.26 of
2016 in the Court of District Judge at Mangrulpir by filing an
appeal under Section 41D(5) of the said Act and there is an
interim order of stay operating to the final order passed by the
learned Joint Charity Commissioner.
5. On the basis of the complaint of the non-applicant
Nos.2 to 5 submitted on 2-7-2014, the FIR came to be registered
on 31-5-2015 against the applicants, which is the subject-matter
apl369.15.odt
of challenge in this petition. The first ground is that unless and
until the charge of misappropriation of funds of the Trust is
proved in the appeal pending before the learned District Judge
challenging the order passed by the learned Joint Charity
Commissioner on 26-8-2016, the prosecution against the
applicants cannot proceed and the registration of FIR is
premature and abuse of process of Court. It is urged that the
non-applicant Nos.2 to 5 had filed Writ Petition No.128 of 2014
before this Court in the nature of Public Interest Litigation
seeking direction to register the offences under Sections 420,
465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
against the applicants and it was withdrawn on 29-1-2014.
According to the applicants, it was, therefore, not permissible to
register the FIR in respect of the said offences against the
applicants on the same facts and circumstances, which existed
while filing Writ Petition No.128 of 2014. It is further urged that
there are no specific allegations made against the applicants so
as to connect them with the alleged offences and the complaint
filed is totally false, only to harass the applicants to ruin their
apl369.15.odt
social image.
6. We have heard Shri Mirza, the learned counsel for the
applicants; Shri Gangane, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.1; and Shri Bhandarkar, the
learned counsel for the non-applicant Nos.2 to 4.
7. We have gone through the order dated 26-8-2016
passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner. Though it
holds the applicant-Trustees guilty of the charges of malfeasance
and misfeasance, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has
refused to go into the charge of misappropriation of the amount
on the ground that the investigation of it is being done in Crime
No.72 of 2015, which is the subject-matter of challenge in this
petition. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner holds that
there is no sufficient material available on record to prove the
charge of misappropriation. In our view, this cannot prevent the
investigation into the offences alleged against the applicants.
The enquiry in respect of the alleged charge of misappropriation,
apl369.15.odt
fabrication of record, etc., is required to be done. The charge is
serious in nature and we do not find any vagueness in it so as to
call the proceedings as abuse of process of Court.
8. We have gone through the first complaint
dated 6-6-2013 made by the non-applicant Nos.2 to 5 to the
Police Station Karanja. It was totally a vague complaint, on the
basis of which the police authorities refused to register the
offences against the applicants. The complaint now filed
dated 2-7-2014 produces material on record, which needs to be
investigated into in the crime registered on the basis of it.
Whether the charges are false or not, is a matter to be enquired
into.
9. In view of above, we do not find that it is a case of abuse
of process of Court or that the registration of FIR against the
applicants was not permissible in the facts and circumstances of
this case or that the pendency of appeal against the order
dated 26-8-2016 passed by the learned Joint Charity
apl369.15.odt
Commissioner, Amravati, in any way becomes an impediment for
the trial of the offences.
10. In view of above, no case is made out to invoke our
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to quash the proceedings of Crime No.72 of 2015.
The application is dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
(M.G. Giratkar, J.) (R.K. Deshpande, J.)
Lanjewar, PS
