Bombay High Court
Sharada Sharadrao Bhore vs The State Of Mah And Ors on 30 October, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
Cri.W.P.285/2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 285 OF 2010
Sharada Sharadrao Bhore,
Age 41 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Devadaithan,Taluka Jamkhed,
Dist.Ahmednagar ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Ahmednagar, Dist.Ahmednagar
3. Raghunath Annasaheb Golekar,
Age 42 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Jamkhed, Taluka Jamkhed,
District Ahmednagar ..Respondent
Mr P.B. Shirsath, Advocate for petitioner
Mr S.J. Salgare, A.P.P. for respondents no.1 and 2
Mr N.V. Gaware, Advocate for respondent no.3
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND
A.M. DHAVALE, JJ
DATE : 30th October 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per T.V. Nalawade, J.)
1. The petition is filed for quashing of proceedings of R.T.C.
No.8/2001 presently pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Jamkhed, District Ahmednagar. It is a case filed by Police for
offences punishable under Sections 465, 471, 420 read with Section
34 of Indian Penal Code. It can be said that provisions of Section 468
of Cr.P.C. also can be used.
2. Heard both sides.
Cri.W.P.285/2010
3. The F.I.R. was filed by Raghunath Golekar - respondent no.3
herein in Jamkhed Police Station. The allegations are made in respect
of record of a trust by name Shiv Pattan Gramin Vikas Mandal, which
is running one educational institution. One Dr. Shirish Golekar was
the founder of this institution and the first informant was a founder
trustee. It is the contention that from 1993 they were running the
institution, but Dr. Shirish Golekar died on 16 th August 1998 and after
that the Secretary and the Treasurer joined hands with present
petitioner who is now shown as President of the trust and created
false record. The allegations are made that they created false record
of a meeting dated 14th April 1999 and they showed that in the
meeting, present petitioner was elected as the President of the trust,
and the previous Secretary and Treasurer were continued. Some
more trustees viz. Nandkumar Vitthal Golekar (treasurer), Vilas Mote
and Sudhir Chawne were shown as continued. After creation of record
of resolution, resolution was sent to the office of Assistant Charity
Commissioner, Ahmednagar. The change report was accepted and
from that year till today, present petitioner is the President of said
institution. It is the contention of the first informant that in the year
2009 when they collected some record, they realised that false record
was created by the present petitioner and other accused, Secretary
Nimbalkar. The F.I.R. was lodged on 23rd January 2010.
4. During investigation, Police recorded statements of the
treasurer Nandkumar and some other trustees including the first
informant. They specifically contended that not a single meeting was
held and they never gave consent for formation of new body of the
Cri.W.P.285/2010
trust. It is the contention of the first informant that other trustees
have also contended that no such meeting was held and they have
not signed on any document like resolution, minutes of meeting or
consent letter. In view of the nature of allegations, during course of
investigation, the specimen of handwriting were collected and were
sent to handwriting expert. Due to stay granted by this Court the
things are stalled.
5. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner had no
role to play in the matter, as she was not even member of the trust in
the past, during the time of previous President. This submission
cannot help the petitioner at least at this stage. Learned Counsel for
petitioner further submitted that the allegations do not constitute the
offence of cheating under Section 415 of Indian Penal Code. He
placed reliance on observations made in Criminal Writ Petition
No.507 of 2013 (Rajeshwarrao Vishwanathrao Patil and ors.
Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors.), decided on 22nd August
2013. This Court has carefully gone through the definition of cheating
given in Section 415 of Indian Penal Code. Cheating includes
intentionally inducing a person so deceived to do or omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit, if he was not so deceived and
which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to
that person in body, mind, reputation or property. There is no
necessity of delivery of any property for committing the offence of
cheating.
Cri.W.P.285/2010
6. The learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that the charge-
sheet is filed for offences punishable under Sections 465, 471 of
Indian Penal Code and the punishment provided for that is not more
than three years and so the Police ought not to have initiated the
action and Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance. This
submission is not acceptable for the offence punishable under Section
420 of Indian Penal Code, for which punishment is of seven years and
in the present case. Section 468 of Indian Penal Code also can be
used. Thus, point of limitation is not at all involved in the present
matter. In the case of Rajeshwarrao and ors. (cited supra) on which
reliance was placed, the facts were different. In the present matter,
the false record is created by the accused, for getting control over
management of institution. The allegation is that complainant was
founder member and so he sustained loss.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of
Apex Court reported in AIR 1988 SC 709 in the case of Madhavrao
Jiwaji Rao Scindia and anr. Vs. Sambhajirao Chadrojirao Angre
and ors., The facts of the said case were different. In the present
matter, there is more than sufficient material to make out prima facie
case for taking cognizance of the offences as mentioned above. It
cannot be said that these are the false allegations and allowing the
matter to go on will amount to abuse of process of law. The other
submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the first
informant has other remedy like approaching the appropriate
authority cannot help accused. When it is the case of creation of false
record, the Court needs to go with presumption that there is allegation
Cri.W.P.285/2010
for making out offence and so the other remedy available cannot
change the things. This Court holds that no reliefs can be granted to
the petitioner. In the circumstances, petition stands rejected.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner requested for continuation of
interim relief. In the circumstances, this Court hold that it is not a fit
case to continue the interim relief. Hence, the request is rejected.
Rule is discharged.
( A.M. DHAVALE, J.) ( T.V. NALAWADE, J.)
vvr
