Ramesh Manohar Madawi vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Arvi ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9965 Bom

                         -1-         922.APL.731.2020. Judgment.odt



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

  CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.731 OF 2020

APPLICANT             : 1. Ramesh Manohar Madawi, Age: 43
                           yrs, Occupation: Government Service,
                           R/o. Best Officer Quarters, Ghatkopar
                           East, Mumbai.

                                //VERSUS//

NON-APPLICANTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra, through
                    PSO of Police Station Arvi, District:
                    Wardha.

                        2. Purshottam Dhotre, Age : 60 years,
                           Occupation: Retired, R/o. C/o.
                           MSRTC, Buldhana.


**************************************************************
            Mr. P.W. Mirza, Advocate for the Applicant.
 Mr. S.S. Doifode, Addl. P.P. for Non-applicant No.1/State.
     Mr. V.H. Kedar, Advocate for Non-applicant No.2.
**************************************************************

CORAM                  : MANISH PITALE AND
                         VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ.

RESERVED ON            : 23rd AUGUST, 2022.

PRONOUNCED ON : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2022.
                             -2-           922.APL.731.2020. Judgment.odt



JUDGMENT (Per: Manish Pitale, J.)

Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel

appearing for the rival parties. Admit.

02] The applicant herein has approached this Court

invoking inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."), for

quashing of First Information Report (F.I.R.) and charge-sheet for

offences under Sections 409, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C.").

By way of amendment, a further prayer is made for quashing and

setting aside order dated 21.08.2020, passed by the Judicial

Magistrate, First Class, Arvi, whereby an application for discharge

filed on behalf of the applicant, was dismissed.

03] On 26.10.2021, this Court had passed an order

permitting amendment of the application for adding the aforesaid

prayer, despite objection raised on behalf of the non-applicant

No.1/State, by referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court. When this application was finally heard, the said objection

-3- 922.APL.731.2020. Judgment.odt

was reiterated on behalf of the non-applicant No.1/State, as well

as the non-applicant No.2 i.e. informant - complainant.

04] The sequence of events, leading to filing of the F.I.R.

and initiation of criminal proceedings is that, the applicant at the

relevant date was working as the Depot Manager of the

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter

referred to as "the Corporation"). On 07.03.2013, overwriting was

allegedly noticed in a register maintained for diesel filled in the

buses of the Corporation, as well as receipts issued by a private

petrol pump from which the diesel was filled, as per an agreement

between the Corporation and the Petrol Pump. It was alleged that

when the Accountant of the Corporation noticed such

overwriting and found that an inflated bill was sought to be

prepared to the extent of 118 liters of diesel, he reported the same

to the applicant i.e. the Depot Manager. Even as per the

allegations, the applicant stopped the processing of the bills and

payment towards diesel that was filled on the said date, in order to

enquire into the matter.

-4- 922.APL.731.2020. Judgment.odt

05] One Mr. Dhotre, the Security and Vigilance Officer of

the Corporation, was asked to enquire into the matter. He

recorded statements of concerned persons, including co-accused

Mr. Belge, working as Assistant and concluded that the

overwriting and attempt at raising inflated bills to the extent of

118 liters of diesel, was carried out on the directions of the

applicant i.e. the Depot Manager and that for excessive diesel

amounting to Rs.6,353/-, the applicant had received cash amount

of Rs.5,000/- from the employee of the concerned petrol pump,

who was also arrayed as an accused. It appears that in pursuance of

the findings given by the Security and Vigilance Officer, a censure

was issued to the applicant and the matter was directed to be

further enquired into.

06] On 02.12.2013 i.e. about 9 months after the alleged

incident, the Security and Vigilance Officer submitted report to

the Police Station at Arvi, making the aforesaid allegations against

the applicant, in pursuance of which F.I.R. No.238 of 2013 dated

03.12.2013, was registered against the applicant and the aforesaid

co-accused persons for offences under Sections 409, 468 and 471

-5- 922.APL.731.2020. Judgment.odt

read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

07] On the basis of the aforesaid material, during the course

of departmental enquiry, charge-sheet dated 18.12.2013, was also

issued to the applicant for the charges of conspiring with other

persons to cause financial loss to the Corporation, indiscipline,

negligence which caused serious loss to the Corporation as well as

inconvenience to the public at large and misappropriation and

cheating as regards the property of the Corporation.

08] In pursuance of issuance of charge-sheet, enquiry was

conducted and statements of all persons concerned with the

incident dated 07.03.2013, were recorded and enquiry report was

prepared and forwarded to the applicant by letter dated

14.08.2014. In the report, the Enquiry Officer found that when

the aforesaid incident occurred, not only was the Security and

Vigilance Officer directed to enquire into the matter, but the

Chief Storage Officer had also recorded statements of the

concerned employees. It was found that two employees i.e. one

Mr. Wahane and other Mr. Talekar, who were questioned, had

stated one version to the Security and Vigilance Officer and

-6- 922.APL.731.2020. Judgment.odt

another to the other Officer. During the course of enquiry by the

Enquiry Officer, when the said employees were confronted with

the conflicting statements, they were unable to give a proper

explanation. It was also found that the co-accused Mr. Belge had

stated before the Security and Vigilance Officer that the

overwriting and tampering with the register and the receipts, was

undertaken on the direction of the applicant, but before the

Enquiry Officer, the said co-accused stated that the aforesaid

statements were made due to the pressure exerted by the Security

and Vigilance Officer.

09] The Enquiry Officer in the said report eventually found

that the said employees Mr. Wahane and Mr. Talekar had

prepared the fabricated bills and entries in the register by

overwriting, due to which penalty of withholding of increments

was imposed on them. Insofar as the applicant was concerned, it

was found that the material on record demonstrated that the

applicant could not be found guilty and that the allegation that he

had received Rs.5,000/- cash from the co-accused i.e. the

employee of the petrol pump, was also not believable on the basis

-7- 922.APL.731.2020. Judgment.odt

of material on record. On this basis, it was found that since the

applicant had already been censured, no further action was

necessary in pursuance of the charge-sheet dated 18.12.2013 and

accordingly, the matter was filed.

10] In the meantime, investigation in pursuance of the

F.I.R. was completed and charge-sheet dated 06.02.2014, came to

be filed. The applicant had initially approached this Court by

filing an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for

quashing of the F.I.R., but in pursuance of filing of the charge-

sheet, he withdrew the same and filed an application for discharge

before the Magistrate. By impugned order dated 21.08.2020, the

application for discharge was dismissed. The applicant has not

only sought quashing of the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet in the

present application, but by way of amendment, he is also seeking

quashing and setting aside of the order of the Magistrate.

11] Mr. P.W. Mirza, learned counsel appearing for the

applicant, at the outset, submitted that an objection raised on

behalf of the non-applicants that the present application ought

not to be entertained, because the applicant had already chosen to

-8- 922.APL.731.2020. Judgment.odt

apply for discharge and the order of the Magistrate could be

challenged in revisional jurisdiction, is not sustainable. It was

claimed on behalf of the non-applicants that since the applicant

had chosen the aforesaid channel of relief, the present application

under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. ought not to be entertained. In

this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant relied

upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Prabhu Chawla Vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in

AIR 2016 SC 4245, wherein it was laid down that merely because

revisional jurisdiction could be invoked, the inherent power of

this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. could not be said to

be unavailable.

12] The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted

that when the applicant stood exonerated in the departmental

enquiry on virtually the same allegations that were the basis of the

F.I.R. and the charge-sheet, the criminal proceedings ought to be

terminated at this stage itself, for the reason that the standard of

proof in criminal cases is much higher. Reliance was placed on

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashoo

-9- 922.APL.731.2020. Judgment.odt

Surendranath Tewari Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW,

CBI and another reported in (2020) 9 SCC 636 , as well as

judgment of this Court in the case of Sanjay s/o. Laxman

Kholapurkar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2021 ALL MR

(Cri) 3808.

13] It was further submitted on behalf of the applicant that

none of the ingredients of the offences alleged against the

applicant were even prima facie made out by the material on

record and therefore, the F.I.R. as well as the charge-sheet

deserved to be quashed and set aside. In this regard, reliance was

placed on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases

of Sheila Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharraj and another Etc. reported in

AIR 2018 SC 2434 and Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs. State

of Bihar and another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751.

14] It was further submitted that this Court has

extraordinary power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to grant

relief to the applicant in the facts and circumstances of the present

case. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs. State (Govt. of

-10- 922.APL.731.2020. Judgment.odt

NCT of Delhi) Department of Home reported in AIR 2019 SC

(Criminal) 310. It was submitted that continuation of the criminal

proceedings in the facts and circumstances of the present case,

would amount to unnecessary harassment of the applicant,

particularly when on the same set of allegations, he stood

exonerated in the departmental enquiry. In addition, it was

submitted that in the absence of sanction, the criminal proceeding

initiated against the applicant could not proceed and that for this

reason also, the present application deserved to be allowed.

15] On the other hand, Mr. Doifode, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of non-applicant

No.1/State and Mr. V.H. Kedar, learned counsel appearing for

non-applicant No.2 i.e. informant - complainant, submitted that

the present application deserved to be dismissed on the short

ground that the applicant had already availed of the remedy of

discharge, which had been rejected by the Magistrate. The only

avenue available for the applicant, was to file an appropriate

revision application in accordance with law before this Court.

According to the learned counsel appearing for the non-

-11- 922.APL.731.2020. Judgment.odt

applicants, the applicant having initially filed an application under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to challenge the F.I.R. and having

withdrawn the same for applying for discharge upon the charge-

sheet being filed, the present application was nothing but an

abuse of the process of the Court.

16] It was further submitted that merely because the

applicant stood exonerated in the departmental enquiry, the same

could not be a ground for quashing of the F.I.R. and the charge-

sheet. It was submitted that statements recorded during the course

of investigation did prima facie indicate the involvement of the

applicant in the alleged offences and that the essential ingredients

of the said offences were clearly made out. It was submitted that

the allegations were serious in nature and that therefore, the

applicant ought not to be granted any relief at this stage,

particularly because a clear case was made out for the matter to go

to trial. On the aspect of sanction, the learned counsel appearing

for the non-applicants relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Shambhoo Nath Misra Vs. State of

U.P. and others reported in AIR 1997 SC 2102 , to submit that in

-12- 922.APL.731.2020. Judgment.odt

the facts of the present case concerning allegations of fabrication

of the record, sanction for prosecution was not necessary. On this

basis, it was submitted that the application deserved to be

dismissed.

17] Heard learned counsel appearing for the rival parties

and perused the material on record. It is necessary to first deal

with the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the non-

applicants that the present application deserves to be dismissed,

for the reason that the applicant had already applied for discharge

and the application was dismissed by the Magistrate. According to

the learned counsel for the non-applicants, the only remedy

available to the applicant in this situation, was to file an

appropriate revision application before this Court. To answer the

said contention, the applicant has relied upon judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhu Chawla Vs. State of

Rajasthan and another (supra). In the said judgment, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held that availability of alternative remedy of

revision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. cannot by itself be a

ground to dismiss the application filed under Section 482 of the

-13- 922.APL.731.2020. Judgment.odt

Cr.P.C. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied

upon earlier judgments where it was held that in a given situation,

this Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of

the Cr.P.C., if a case is made out by the applicant and that nothing

contained in Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. can limit or affect the

exercise of inherent power by the High Court. In paragraph 6 of

the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

"6. In our considered view any attempt to explain the law further as regards the issue relating to inherent power of High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is unwarranted. We would simply reiterate that Section 482 begins with a non-obstante clause to state: "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." A fortiori, there can be no total ban on the exercise of such wholesome jurisdiction where, in the words of Krishna Iyer, J. "abuse of the process of the Court or other extraordinary situation excites the court's jurisdiction. The limitation is self-restraint, nothing more.". We venture to add a further reason in support. Since Section 397 Cr.P.C. is attracted against all orders other than interlocutory, a contrary view would limit the availability of inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. only to petty interlocutory orders! A situation wholly unwarranted and undesirable."

-14- 922.APL.731.2020. Judgment.odt

18] In view of the aforesaid position of law, we are of the

opinion that merely because the remedy of revision was available

to the applicant to challenge the order of the Magistrate rejecting

his application for discharge, it cannot be said that the present

application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.

We are conscious that in such circumstances, the applicant is

required to make out a case that further continuation of the

criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of

law and that to secure the ends of justice, this Court would

certainly exercise its inherent power. Therefore, it becomes

necessary to examine the contention raised on behalf of the

applicant that continuation of the criminal proceedings in the

facts and circumstances of the present case, would indeed amount

to an abuse of the process of the law.

19] In order to buttress the aforesaid contention, the

applicant has relied upon the position of law, clarified by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashoo Surendranath

Tewari Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and

another (supra). It has been held therein that exoneration in a

-15- 922.APL.731.2020. Judgment.odt

departmental enquiry on same set of allegations ought to result in

terminating the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused

person. The basis of the said position of law is that the standard of

proof in a criminal proceeding, on the touchstone of proof beyond

reasonable doubt, is much higher than the lower standard of proof

in a departmental enquiry, which is based on preponderance of

probabilities. The position of law in that regard was clarified in

the judgment in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of

West Bengal reported in (2011) 3 SCC 581, wherein it was held as

under:

"38.The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows:

(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously;

(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution;

(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other;

(iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution;

(v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent

-16- 922.APL.731.2020. Judgment.odt

court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

(vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and

(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases."

20] The Hon'ble Supreme Court further concluded in the

said judgment as follows:

"39.In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court."

21] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashoo

Surendranath Tewari Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW,

-17- 922.APL.731.2020. Judgment.odt

CBI and another (supra), quoted the above paragraphs 38 and 39

of the judgment in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of

West Bengal (supra), approvingly and in the facts of the said case

held that the petitioner therein need not face criminal

proceedings.

22] It is vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant

that the position of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West

Bengal (supra) and reiterated in the case of Ashoo Surendranath

Tewari Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and

another (supra), applies in favour of the applicant. In order to

examine the said contention, it would be necessary to refer to the

findings of the Enquiry Officer in the aforesaid enquiry report,

forwarded to the applicant alongwith letter dated 14.08.2014. We

find that the charge-sheet dated 18.12.2013, indeed levelled

allegations against the applicant, akin to the allegations made in

the report, leading to the registration of the aforesaid F.I.R. In the

departmental enquiry, statements of employees of the

Corporation were recorded and it was found that the applicant

-18- 922.APL.731.2020. Judgment.odt

could not be held guilty of the charges, as the alleged overwriting

and fabrications, could not be attributable to the applicant, or

even on the direction of the applicant. It was found that the co-

accused Mr. Belge specifically stated that the Security and

Vigilance Officer, who had initially enquired into the matter, had

exerted pressure on the co-accused to falsely implicate the

applicant. It was found that in such circumstances, at worst, the

applicant could be said to have been negligent in supervising the

functioning of his sub-ordinates, while he was working as the

Depot Manager of the Corporation, when the incident occurred

on 07.03.2013. On this basis, it was concluded that no action

could be taken against the applicant, in pursuance of the aforesaid

charge-sheet, which led to the departmental enquiry, particularly

when the applicant was already censured for negligence.

23] When the statements of witnesses and the material

placed alongwith the charge-sheet submitted in pursuance of the

aforesaid F.I.R., are considered, it is found that such investigation

was virtually based on the very same allegations that were levelled

in the departmental enquiry. The statements of witnesses show

-19- 922.APL.731.2020. Judgment.odt

that the F.I.R. itself was registered after about 9 months. It is also

found that the Investigating Authority is placing reliance on

statements of two employees of the Corporation i.e. Mr. Wahane

and Mr. Talekar, who were found to have made conflicting

statements in the departmental enquiry. It was found that at one

place, they had implicated the applicant as the person, at whose

behest the alleged overwriting had taken place and at another

place, they had not implicated the applicant. The only statement

that then remains is that of the co-accused Mr. Belge. In fact,

statement of the Accountant Mr. Nanhe shows that he found the

overwriting in the register as well as the receipts issued by the

petrol pump and when he brought the same to the notice of the

applicant, who was working as the Depot Manager, the first

direction given by the applicant was to stop processing of the bills

on the basis of such documents and to stop payment for filling of

diesel on the date of the incident, till the matter was enquired

into. The statement of the Accountant, in fact, indicates an

appropriate step taken by the applicant as the Depot Manager of

the Corporation. It is also an admitted position that payment was

not disbursed by the Corporation for the diesel filled on the date

-20- 922.APL.731.2020. Judgment.odt

of the incident.

24] All other statements of the so-called witnesses during

the course of investigation, show that they stated about being

completely unaware as to who was responsible for the overwriting

and the fabrications and that they came to know much later that

criminal investigation was initiated against the applicant and the

co-accused persons. Even as regards the statement of co-accused

Mr. Belge that he had handed over cash amount of Rs.5,000/- to

the applicant, which was allegedly given by the employee of the

petrol pump i.e. the other co-accused person, is found to be in

contradiction to the statement of the very same person in the

departmental enquiry, where he stated that the aforesaid allegation

was made against the applicant under the threat given by the

Security and Vigilance Officer. It is significant that the F.I.R.

stood registered after a delay of about 9 months at the behest of

the same Security and Vigilance Officer. Therefore, the entire

material available alongwith the charge-sheet, including the

statements of the witnesses even prima facie does not indicate

involvement of the applicant.

-21- 922.APL.731.2020. Judgment.odt

25] Insofar as ingredients of the offences are concerned, the

allegation pertaining to Section 468 of the I.P.C. regarding forgery

needs to be appreciated in the backdrop of the law laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that regard. In the case of Sheila

Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharraj and another Etc. (supra), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the context of the offence of forgery held as

follows:

"19.A close scrutiny of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that, Section 463 defines the offence of forgery, while Section 464 substantiates the same by providing an answer as to when a false document could be said to have been made for the purpose of committing an offence of forgery under Section 463, IPC. Therefore, we can safely deduce that Section 464 defines one of the ingredients of forgery i.e., making of a false document. Further, Section 465 provides punishment for the commission of the offence of forgery. In order to sustain a conviction under Section 465, first it has to be proved that forgery was committed under Section 463, implying that ingredients under Section 464 should also be satisfied. Therefore unless and until ingredients under Section 463 are satisfied a person cannot be convicted under Section 465 by solely relying on the ingredients of Section 464, as the offence of forgery would remain incomplete."

26] Thus, Section 463 of the I.P.C. becomes crucial in this

context, which pertains to definition of forgery and it opens with

-22- 922.APL.731.2020. Judgment.odt

the word "whoever makes a false document" with Section 464

defining as to what is "making a false document". A perusal of the

said provisions would show that the aforesaid offence necessarily

requires prima facie material to show that the person against

whom the allegations are made, has made or created a false

document or indulged in forgery. In the present case, the material

on record does not even prima facie disclose the ingredients of the

said offence.

27] This has been further elaborated in the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and

others Vs. State of Bihar and another (supra). The said judgment

also deals with the ingredients of the offence of cheating defined

in Section 415 of the I.P.C. and made punishable under Section

420 thereof. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgment to the

facts of the present case, it is found that even prima facie the

ingredients of the offences alleged against the applicant are not

made out. The offence under Section 409 of the I.P.C. involving

criminal breach of trust by a public servant would necessarily

require the material on record to demonstrate ingredients of

-23- 922.APL.731.2020. Judgment.odt

criminal breach of trust as defined in Section 405 of the I.P.C. In

the present case, as noted above, barring the statement of co-

accused Mr. Belge, there is nothing to even prima facie indicate

that the applicant had dishonestly misappropriated property of the

Corporation entrusted to him. Even the statement of the co-

accused Mr. Belge, when compared with his specific statement

made in the departmental enquiry, shows that according to him,

the Security and Vigilance Officer had threatened and coerced

him to make such statements against the applicant. Therefore, this

Court is convinced that even prima facie the allegations made

against the applicant do not disclose the ingredients of the said

offence, on the basis of the material placed on record with the

charge-sheet.

28] As regards the contention pertaining to absence of

sanction, this Court agrees with the submission made on behalf of

the non-applicants that when fabrication and misappropriation of

funds by a public servant are involved, sanction for prosecution

may not be necessary, because such acts cannot be said to be acts

done as part of the official duty, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme

-24- 922.APL.731.2020. Judgment.odt

Court in the Shambhoo Nath Misra Vs. State of U.P. and others

(supra). But, the question of sanction pales into insignificance, in

view of the above conclusion that we have arrived at, to the effect

that exoneration of the applicant in the departmental enquiry for

virtually the same allegations ought to lead to termination of the

criminal proceedings. To permit the criminal proceedings to

continue further would amount to an abuse of the process of law

and ends of justice will be met by invoking our inherent power

under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the F.I.R. as well as

the charge-sheet. Considering the aforesaid conclusions, it

becomes obvious that the Magistrate erred in refusing to discharge

the applicant.

29] As noted above, the Enquiry Officer in the

departmental enquiry found that, at worst, the applicant could be

said to have been negligent in supervising his sub-ordinates, for

which he had already suffered the penalty of censure. In these

circumstances, we are inclined to agree with the learned counsel

for the applicant that the present application deserves to be

allowed.

-25- 922.APL.731.2020. Judgment.odt

30] In view of the above, the application is allowed in terms

of the prayers made in the application.

31] Consequently, F.I.R. No.238 of 2013 dated 03.12.2013

registered against the applicant at Police Station Arvi, Dist

Wardha, as also the charge-sheet bearing No.14/14 dated

06.02.2014, are quashed and set aside. The order of the

Magistrate dated 21/08/2020, dismissing the application for

discharge filed by the applicant, is rendered meaningless and it is

consequentially set aside.

32] As a result, Regular Criminal Case (RCC) No.29 of

2014, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class,

Arvi, District Wardha, is also quashed and set aside.

                                      (VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.)              (MANISH PITALE, J.)




                   Vijay




Signed By:GHANSHYAM S
KHUNTE


Signing Date:29.09.2022 17:43