Sau. Archana W/O. Kishor ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. The ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7241 Bom

                                           1                                      jg.apl 510.17.odt

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, 
                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                 Criminal Application (APL) No. 510 of 2017

Sau Archana W/o Kishor Choudhari, 
Aged about 33 years, Occ : Sarpanch 
R/o Dahegaon Ranganri, Tahsil Saoner 
Dist Nagpur.                                                           .... Applicant

      //  Versus //

(1) State of Maharashtra,
      Through the Police Station Officer,
      Police Station, Khaparkheda, 
      Dist. Nagpur. 

(2) Block Development Officer,
      Panchayat Samiti, Saoner, 
      Tahsil Saoner Dist Nagpur. 

(3) Chief Executive Officer, Zilla
      Parishad Nagpur, Office at Zilla 
      Parishad Building Civil Lines 
      Nagpur.                                                         .... Non-Applicants

Shri Anand Jaiswal, Senior Advocate with Shri P. S. Tiwari, Advocate for
the applicant
Shri A. M. Deshpande, Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-
applicant no. 1 
Ms. Aparna Mankawde, Advocate for the non-applicant nos. 2 and 3
                                                      
                                    CORAM      : SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                  M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.

DATE : 18-9-2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)

The criminal application is admitted and heard finally at the

stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

.....2/-

2 jg.apl 510.17.odt

2. By this criminal application, the applicant seeks the quashing

and setting aside of the First Information Report dated 18-7-2017,

bearing Crime No. 371/2017 registered against the applicant for the

offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of

the Penal Code.

3. The applicant is the Sarpanch of Village Dahegaon (Rangari)

since the year 2013. On 24-1-2015, Gram Panchayat, Dahegaon

(Rangari) had served a notice on one Madhukar Gondane that he had

encroached upon the gram panchayat land and that he should remove

the encroachment within the specified time. In the month of June and

July, 2016, the husband of the applicant had made more than half a

dozen complaints with serious allegations against the Hon'ble Guardian

Minister of Nagpur to the Hon'ble Chief Minister. On 8-8-2016,

Madhukar Gondane who was asked to remove the encroachment made a

complaint in writing to the Hon'ble Guardian Minister levelling several

allegations against the applicant - Sarpanch, her husband as also the

Gram Vikas Adhikari. On the complaint dated 8-8-2016, the Guardian

Minister made an endorsement that the accounts of Gram Panchayat,

Dahegaon (Rangari) should be verified from the Accountant Generals

Office and the Chief Executive Officer should personally conduct an

enquiry after checking the records of the gram panchayat within three

.....3/-

3 jg.apl 510.17.odt

days. On the same day i.e. on 8-8-2016, the Special Executive Officer

from the office of the Guardian Minister dispatched a communication to

the Deputy Chief Executive officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur informing him

about the directions of the Guardian Minister that the accounts of the

gram panchayat should be checked within three days and appropriate

action should be taken. The complaint of Madhukar Gondane, dated

8-8-2016, on which the endorsement was made by the Guardian Minister

that the Chief Executive Officer should personally conduct an enquiry

and check the record within three days was also annexed to the

communication of the Special Executive officer that was received by the

Deputy Chief Executive Officer. The Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zilla

Parishad, Nagpur, after receiving the said communication/order from the

Special Executive Officer in the office of the Guardian Minister, dated

8-8-2016 made an endorsement on the said order/communication on

9-8-2016 that the audit should be conducted immediately and the report

be sent to the Finance Department of the Zilla Parishad. Also, it was

mentioned in the said endorsement that it should be done on the same

day i.e. 9-8-2016. Acting on the aforesaid directives from the office of

the Guardian Minister, on the basis of the endorsement made by him on

the complaint made by Madhukar Gondane on 8-8-2016, an enquiry

committee was constituted and a report was prepared on 29-8-2016.

The enquiry committee that comprised of 4 members from various

.....4/-

4 jg.apl 510.17.odt

departments observed in the report that the funds were not utilized by

the gram panchayat as per the rules. In the said report, it was observed

by the committee that for the financial irregularities in a gram panchayat,

the Sarpanch and the Secretary would be liable as per the rules and

therefore, the Secretary and the Sarpanch would be responsible for the

irregularities. There was however no finding in the report that the

Sarpanch, Secretary or any other member of the gram panchayat had

misappropriated the funds of the gram panchayat. Though the report

was submitted by the committee on the directives of the Guardian

Minister on 29-8-2016, no action was taken against the applicant -

Sarpanch or any other members of the gram panchayat till 6-2-2017,

when two types of proceedings were sought to be initiated against the

applicant - Sarpanch and some others. The proceedings were initiated

against the applicant - Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 39 of

the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act for her removal from the office.

The said proceedings are pending till date. Also on 6-2-2017, the Block

Development Officer lodged a report in Khaparkheda Police Station that

since a part of the record was not made available to the enquiry

committee, the same could not be examined by the committee. It is

further alleged in the report lodged by the Block Development Officer

that non submission of a part of the record would mean that someone

would have been benefited and he was sought to be protected by not

.....5/-

5 jg.apl 510.17.odt

submitting the part of the record. On the same day, N.C. report was

made in respect of the said report/complaint dated 6-2-2017, in Police

Station, Khaparkheda. Again, nothing happened in the matter till

17-7-2017 when a second report was lodged by the Block Development

Officer making certain allegations against the applicant and some others

on the basis of the enquiry report that was prepared by the enquiry

committee on 29-8-2016. Surprisingly, on the basis of the report of the

enquiry committee and the second report lodged by the Block

Development Officer on 17-7-2017, the first information report was

registered against the applicant - Sarpanch under Sections 409, 420 read

with Section 34 of the Penal Code. The applicant has sought for the

quashing and setting aside of the first information report registered

against her as according to her, the first information report is attended

with mala fides and the same is registered with a motive of wrecking

vengeance on the applicant due to the grudge against her.

4. Shri Anand Jaiswal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the applicant submitted that Gram Panchayat, Dahegaon (Rangari) had

served a notice on Madhukar Gondane on 24-1-2015 directing him to

remove the encroachment and being agitated by the said notice, he had

lodged a complaint in writing against the applicant - Sarpanch, her

husband and Gram Vikas Adhikari before the Guardian Minister of

.....6/-

6 jg.apl 510.17.odt

Nagpur District on 8-8-2016. It is stated that just before Madhukar

Gondane had made the complaint to the Guardian Minister, the husband

of the applicant had also made several complaints against the Hon'ble

Guardian Minister to the Hon'ble Chief Minister. It is submitted that only

after the complaints were made by the husband of the applicant against

the Guardian Minister in June-July, 2016 and after Madhukar Gondane

was asked to remove the encroachment, Madhukar Gondane had made

the complaint to the Guardian Minister on 8-8-2016. It is submitted that

though it would not be for the Hon'ble Guardian Minister to issue any

directions on the complaint made by Madhukar Gondane as it would be

necessary for Madhukar Gondane to take appropriate steps, as are

available to him in law, the complaint was made to the Hon'ble Guardian

Minister and the Guardian Minister had directed the Chief Executive

Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur to personally conduct an enquiry, get the

accounts of the gram panchayat audited from the Accountant Generals

Office and check the record of the gram panchayat within three days. It

is stated that on 8-8-2016 itself, the Special Executive Officer in the office

of the Guardian Minister directed the office of the Chief Executive

Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur to conduct the audit immediately and

prepare the report as directed by the Hon'ble Guardian Minister. It is

submitted that an endorsement was made by the Deputy Chief Executive

officer of the Zilla Parishad on 9-8-2016 asking immediate enquiry in the

.....7/-

7 jg.apl 510.17.odt

matter and sending the report to the Finance Department of the Zilla

Parishad. It is submitted that a four member committee had submitted

the report on 29-8-2016, which does not record a finding that either the

applicant or any other member of the gram panchayat had

misappropriated the funds of the gram panchayat. It is stated that

nothing happened in the matter for about six months when in February,

2017, proceedings were initiated against the applicant for her removal as

Sarpanch under Section 39 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act. It

is stated that on 6-2-2017, a report was also lodged by the Block

Development Officer in Khaparkheda Police Station that the criminal law

may be set in motion as the part of the record of the gram panchayat was

not supplied to the enquiry committee. It is submitted that when the

N.C. report was made in the police station on the same day, no further

action was taken till 17-7-2017, when on the basis of the enquiry report

that was prepared a year earlier viz. 29-8-2016 a second report was

lodged against the applicant - Sarpanch and the Secretary of the gram

panchayat for misappropriation of the funds of the gram panchayat. It is

submitted that though there is no finding in the enquiry committee's

report that there was misappropriation of funds by the applicant or by

anybody else, the second report was mischievously lodged. It is

submitted that on the basis of the report of the enquiry committee the

first information report was registered against the applicant. It is

.....8/-

8 jg.apl 510.17.odt

submitted that the first information report is maliciously registered

against the applicant on the basis of the enquiry that was conducted on

the directives of the Guardian Minister. It is submitted that in the

circumstances of the case, by applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan

Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, the FIR is liable to

be quashed and set aside as it is manifestly attended with mala fides and

the same is registered on the basis of the second report lodged by the

Block Development Officer merely with a view to ensure that the

proceedings should be launched against the applicant under the criminal

law.

5. Shri Deshpande, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the non-applicant no. 1 submitted that there is no merit in

any of the submissions made on behalf of the applicant. It is submitted

that first report was lodged by the Block Development Officer on

6-2-2017 alleging therein that the part of the record was not submitted

by the applicant and the members of the gram panchayat and hence, the

FIR was liable to be registered against them for refusal to supply a part of

the record that showed that some person would have been benefited and

that he was sought to be protected. It is submitted that as the aforesaid

were the allegations in the report dated 6-2-2017, the non-applicant

.....9/-

9 jg.apl 510.17.odt

no. 1 made the N.C. report. It is submitted that on 17-7-2017, a second

report was lodged by the Block Development Officer alleging therein that

there was misappropriation of the funds by the applicant - Sarpanch,

Secretary and some others and that the FIR should be registered against

them. It is submitted that the allegations in the FIR dated 6-2-2017 and

18-7-2017 are entirely different. It is submitted that since the offences

under Sections 409 and 420 of the Penal Code could be prima facie

made out on the basis of the allegations made in the report, the FIR was

registered against the applicant on 18-7-2017. It is stated that it is well

settled that if the offence cannot be prima facie made out against the

accused, after accepting the allegations in the FIR at their face value, it

would be necessary for the Court to consider the other material collected

by the Investigating Officer in support of the FIR registered against the

accused. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer had found certain

irregularities in the affairs of the gram panchayat, of which the applicant

is a Sarpanch, after investigation. It is stated that though a cheque for

Rs. 1,42,000/- was shown to have been issued, the same was not issued

to the person concerned and though in cash book, there was an entry of

Rs. 1,42,000/-, an amount of Rs. 36,000/- was withdrawn by cheque. It

is stated that cheque no. 11 for the amount of Rs. 87,000/- was not

entered into the account books. It is submitted that the statements of

certain witnesses show that they had not received the money and had

.....10/-

10 jg.apl 510.17.odt

also not supplied the material. It is stated that some entries were not

found in the stock books. It is stated that a person had made a statement

that only a part of the amount that was liable to be paid to him was

received by him. It is stated that some of the transaction above

Rs. 5000/- were not made by cheque. It is stated that on the basis of the

material that is collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation,

offences are now registered against the applicant under Sections 467,

468, 471 and 193 of the Penal Code. It is submitted that the

Investigating Officer has conducted the investigation on the basis of the

report and the material found during the investigation should be

considered by this Court while deciding whether the prayer made by the

applicant could be granted. It is submitted that since material is

available with the Investigating Officer to prima facie prove

misappropriation and the commission of other offences that are now

registered against the applicant, the application is liable to be dismissed.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 8 SCC 787 to substantiate

his submission that even if the offence registered against the accused

cannot be prima facie made out on the basis of the allegations in the FIR,

it would be the duty of the Court to consider the material collected

during the investigation while deciding the prayer for quashing the first

information report.

.....11/-

11 jg.apl 510.17.odt

6. Ms. Aparna Mankawde, the learned counsel for the non-

applicant nos. 2 and 3 submitted that after the enquiry committee was

constituted and the report was made by the committee, the applicant was

time and again served with the notices in regard to the irregularities

committed by her. It is submitted that the first report was lodged against

the applicant on 6-2-2017 as she had not submitted a part of the record

of the gram panchayat to the enquiry committee and the subsequent

report dated 17-7-2017 does not relate to the said allegation and relates

to the misappropriation of the funds of the gram panchayat by the

applicant - Sarpanch and some others.

7. Since we had made a query to the learned counsel for the

non-applicant nos. 2 and 3 on the last date of hearing after finding that

the FIR was maliciously registered against the applicant, against how

many Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats in Nagpur District, first

information reports for misappropriating the funds of the respective

gram panchayats were registered, it is informed that against the

Sarpanchas of only 3 gram panchayats, similar first information reports

are registered. When we had made a query to the learned counsel as to

how many gram panchayats are constituted in Nagpur District, it is

informed, on instructions from the officer who is present in the Court

that in all, there are 769 Gram Panchayats in Nagpur District.

.....12/-

12 jg.apl 510.17.odt

8. This is a classic case where the 7 th principle laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of State of Haryana

and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others (supra) would be applicable. In

the celebrated judgment in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has mentioned the categories of cases that are stated by

way of illustration wherein the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent power under Section 482

of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be exercised by the High Courts,

either to prevent the abuse of the process of court or to secure the ends

of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the circumstances

when such power could be exercised. In the instant case, we are

concerned with the 7th guideline or circumstance under which the FIR

could be quashed and set aside by invoking the jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where a criminal

proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the

proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking

vengeance on the accused with a view to spite him due to private and

personal grudge, jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be invoked.

We have narrated the facts and circumstances which precede the filing

of the report by the Block Development Officer on 17-7-2017 and the

.....13/-

13 jg.apl 510.17.odt

registration of the FIR on the basis of the same. It would be necessary to

reiterate the facts and circumstances that are not disputed either by the

non-applicant no. 1 or by the non-applicant nos. 2 and 3. On 24-1-2015,

the gram panchayat had asked Madhukar Gondane to remove the

encroachment within a specific time and in the month of June-July,

2016, the husband of the applicant - Sarpanch had made more than half

a dozen complaints to the Hon'ble Chief Minister against the Hon'ble

Guardian Minister, levelling serious allegations against him. The very

persons viz. Madhukar Gondane and the Guardian Minister have played a

key role in ensuring criminal action against the applicant - Sarpanch.

Madhukar Gondane made a complaint to the Hon'ble Guardian Minister

on 8-8-2016 levelling some allegations against the applicant, her

husband and the Gram Vikas Adhikari. With great speed, on the same

day i.e. the date of communication viz. 8-8-2016, the Hon'ble Guardian

Minister made an endorsement on the complaint dated 8-8-2016 made

by Madhukar Gondane that the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,

Nagpur should personally conduct an enquiry in the affairs of the gram

panchayat and the accounts of the gram panchayat should be audited by

the Accountant Generals Office and the record should be checked within

three days. With hurricane speed, on the same day the Special Executive

Officer in the office of the Hon'ble Guardian Minister dispatched the

communication to the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad that

.....14/-

14 jg.apl 510.17.odt

action should be taken as per the directions of the Hon'ble Guardian

Minister. Surprisingly, the Deputy Chief Executive Officer also received

the communication on the same day i.e. 8-8-2016, as could be seen from

his endorsement on the said communication. The non-applicant nos. 2

and 3 have not disputed any of these endorsements or the receipt of the

communication. On 9-8-2016, the Deputy Chief Executive Officer of Zilla

Parishad, Nagpur directed that the needful should be done and after

immediately conducting an audit, the report should be prepared and

send to the Finance Department of the Zilla Parishad. A four member

committee was then constituted to enquire into the complaints made

against the applicant and some others and the report is submitted by the

four member committee on 29-8-2016. We have minutely perused the

report. There is no finding in the report of the four member committee

that either the applicant or any other member of the gram panchayat had

misappropriated the funds of the gram panchayat. On almost every item

of the complaint that was sought to be enquired into, a finding is

recorded that the act was not done in accordance with the rules. Since

there was no finding in respect of misappropriation by the applicant or

any member of the gram panchayat, no action was taken against the

applicant for quite sometime, when on 6-2-2017, probably being

aggrieved by the absence of findings in the enquiry report about

misappropriation, a report was lodged in Police Station, Khaparkheda

.....15/-

15 jg.apl 510.17.odt

that a part of the record was not supplied to the enquiry committee. A

'N.C.' report was made on the same day in respect of the complaint made

by the Block Development Officer. In the month of February, 2017,

however, action was initiated against the applicant for her removal under

the provisions of Section 39 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act.

We are not concerned with the same and the said proceeding may go on

against the applicant, if the enquiry committee has found certain

irregularities in the gram panchayat and it would be for the applicant to

defend the same. Since a N.C. report was made in the Police Station on

the report lodged by the Block Development Officer, a second report was

lodged on 17-7-2017, alleging therein that the applicant and some others

had misappropriated the funds of the gram panchayat. Surprisingly,

though there is no finding in the report of the enquiry committee that

there was misappropriation by the applicant or anybody else in the gram

panchayat, the second report is based only on the enquiry report dated

29-8-2016. This time, the non-applicant no. 1 decided to register the

first information report immediately, on the next day, viz. 18-7-2017. At

the relevant time, nothing was available with the non-applicant no. 1 for

registering the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the

Penal Code except the enquiry report dated 29-8-2016 and the second

complaint - report of the Block Development Officer dated 17-7-2017. In

the circumstances of the case, we are clearly of the view that the 7 th

.....16/-

16 jg.apl 510.17.odt

principle in the judgment in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) would apply

for invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

9. In the first place, Madhukar Gondane could not have made a

complaint against the applicant, her husband or the Gram Vikas Adhikari

to the Hon'ble Guardian Minister. If Madhukar Gondane had any

grievance about the three persons against whom he had made the

complaint to the Hon'ble Guardian Minister, he should have initiated

appropriate proceedings, as available to him, in law. Similarly, the

Hon'ble Guardian Minister should not have immediately, on the day on

which he had received the complaint from Madhukar Gondane, directed

the Chief Executive officer of the Zilla Parishad to personally conduct an

enquiry in the affairs of the gram panchayat on the basis of the complaint

lodged by Madhukar Gondane and check the record within three days. It

is necessary to note that the gram panchayat of which the applicant is the

Sarpanch had taken action against Madhukar Gondane for removal of

encroachment and the husband of the applicant had made about 6 to 8

complaints to the Hon'ble Chief Minister against the Guardian Minister in

June-July, 2016. The statements made in this criminal application for

seeking the quashing and setting aside of the first information report

are not disputed. On the day of receiving the complaint dated 8-8-2016

.....17/-

17 jg.apl 510.17.odt

from Madhukar Gondane, a speedy enquiry was directed by the Guardian

Minister in the complaint made by Madhukar Gondane but under what

power or authority of law, it is not known. The accounts of the gram

panchayat were directed to be audited by the office of the Accountant

General. Surprisingly, on the same day i.e. 8-8-2016, the Special

Executive Officer from the office of the gram panchayat asked the Deputy

Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad vide communication/order dated

8-8-2016 to verify the records of the gram panchayat within three days

and conduct the audit as per the directives of the Hon'ble Guardian

Minister. The said communication is received by the Deputy Chief

Executive Officer on the same day i.e. on 8-8-2016. On 9-8-2016, the

Deputy Chief Executive Officer made an endorsement that an enquiry

may be conducted in the allegations of misappropriation, corruption and

irregularities. Everything is done at an electrifying speed. Though the

Deputy Chief Executive Officer had directed that an enquiry be

conducted in the complaint of misappropriation and corruption, we do

not find any finding in the enquiry report dated 29-8-2016 that either the

applicant or any other member of the gram panchayat was involved in

corruption or misappropriation. As rightly submitted on behalf of the

applicant, since no finding was recorded in the enquiry report on the

basis of which criminal action could be taken against the applicant, the

report was lodged by the Block Development Officer on the first occasion

.....18/-

18 jg.apl 510.17.odt

on 6-2-2017 seeking criminal action against the applicant and others as

they had not tendered the part of the record of the gram panchayat to the

enquiry committee. Though in the said report-complaint, the Block

Development Officer had mentioned that a part of the record was not

produced with a view to give some benefit to some person, who is not

named and to save him, with the making of N.C. report on the said

complaint, no action against the applicant or anybody else was possible.

Again on 17-7-2017, on the basis of the enquiry report that was prepared

nearly a year earlier on 29-8-2017, the second complaint was made

against the applicant and some others in Police Station, Khaparkheda.

This time, the FIR was registered against the applicant and the Secretary

of the Gram Panchayat. Even if we accept the allegations in the FIR dated

18-7-2017, the offences under Section 409 or 420 of the Penal Code

cannot be prima facie made out against the applicant. On a reading of

the provisions of Section 409 and 420 of the Penal Code, it is apparent

that the aforesaid offences cannot be prima facie made out against the

applicant on the basis of the allegations in the second report lodged by

the Block Development Officer on 17-7-2017. Knowing this fully well, a

submission is made on behalf of the non-applicant no.1 by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor that after making further investigation,

some material is found against the applicant, on the basis of which some

more offences were registered against the applicant, viz. the offences

.....19/-

19 jg.apl 510.17.odt

under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 193 of the Penal Code. We are

surprised that the offence under Section 193 of the Penal code is also

added though the said provision cannot be remotely applied to the case

in hand. Proceedings could have been initiated against the applicant

under Sections 39, 39A or 178 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats

Act, if at all, the concerned authorities had thought of acting upon the

enquiry report. Since there is no finding in the enquiry report about

misappropriation or corruption and since the finding only refers to non-

compliance of rules, criminal action could not have been initiated against

the applicant on the basis of the said enquiry report. In the aforesaid set

of facts, that smack of mala fides, the FIR is registered against the

applicant.

10. On the last date of hearing on 14-9-2017, after we had heard

the matter completely, a query was made to the counsel for non-

applicant nos.2 and 3, against how many Sarpanchas in Nagpur District,

such police reports pertaining to misappropriation are made and how

many such first information reports are registered, it is informed today

by the counsel for the non-applicant nos. 2 and 3 that such reports are

registered against only 3 Sarpanchas. It is informed that there are 769

gram panchayats in Nagpur District and similar first information reports

are registered only against 3 Sarpanchas.

.....20/-

20 jg.apl 510.17.odt

11. We are surprised that when in several important matters that

are conducted in this Court in relation to larger scams and other

important criminal cases, the Additional Public Prosecutor is not

provided with the assistance of the Investigating Officer, who is normally

absent in the Court, on the last date of hearing viz. 14-9-2017, almost

every police personnel from Police station, Khaparkheda appeared to

have been present in the Court, just beside the learned Additional Public

Prosecutors that were defending this application. On our query we were

informed that the Senior Police Inspector who controls Police Station,

Khaparkheda was present, the Investigating Officer who had conducted

the investigation was also present and so were the other Police

Constables in the said police station present in the Court for watching the

proceedings. We had made the query about the presence of the half a

dozen police personnel as we hardly notice the presence of police in the

Court, except the jail authorities in parole and furlough matters. In some

of the matters of considerable importance, even replies are not filed by

the Investigating Officer for about 5 to 6 months. In some of the matters

that we are taking up, the replies are not filed till date, though the

notices are served on the Additional Public Prosecutors in the month of

March, April and May, 2017. We therefore, understand how important

this matter was for the non-applicant no.1 and the others who desired

.....21/-

21 jg.apl 510.17.odt

that the relief sought by the applicant should not be granted. Be that as it

may, since the allegations and the material which the non-applicant no.1

has now collected cannot be useful for supporting the filing/registration

of the FIR and if at all it is useful, it could be used in the proceedings that

are initiated against the applicant under section 39 of the Maharashtra

Village Panchayats Act which deal with the irregularities in the

administration of the gram panchayat, we are inclined to quash the first

information report. We are clearly of the view that since action was

sought by the gram panchayat of which the applicant is the Sarpanch

against Madhukar Gondane for removal of encroachment and since the

husband of the applicant had made more than half a dozen complaints to

the Hon'ble Chief Minister against the Guardian Minister with serious

allegations, the Guardian Minister and Madhukar Gondane have been

instrumental in initiating criminal action against the applicant. The FIR is

politically motivated and the entire action is based on the diktats of the

guardian minister on the written complaint of Madhukar Gondane, dated

8-8-2016. In the circumstances of the case, we find that the registration

of the first information report against the applicant is manifestly attended

with mala fides and the same is registered with ulterior motive for

wrecking vengeance on the applicant due to private and personal grudge.

By applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Bhajan Lal (supra), it would be necessary to invoke the provisions of

.....22/-

22 jg.apl 510.17.odt

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and set aside the

FIR registered against the applicant.

12. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the criminal application is

allowed. The First Information Report registered against the applicant

is hereby quashed and set aside. Order accordingly.

                  JUDGE                                          JUDGE



wasnik




                                                                                      ...../-