Bombay High Court
Bhagirath Shankar Wani vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 8 January, 2024
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2024:BHC-AS:1450-DB
1/7
2.WP.924.2021(2).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.924 OF 2021
Bhagirath Shankar Wani
Age : 54 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o.: Shiv Colony, Survey No.54/1,
Jalgaon 425001. ..Petitioner
(Original Accused)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Satara City Police Station,
Dist- Satara.
(To be served through Public Prosecutor,
Bombay High Court)
2. Shri. Makarand Madhukarrao Deshmukh,
Add: Lokmat Office, Pornima Appt. Second Floor,
Kondaole, Laxmipuri, Kolhapur ..Respondents
Ms. Poonam Ankleshwaria a/w. Adv. Prathmesh Parkar a/w. Adv. Harsh
Dattamani for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Patil, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI &
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ
RESERVED ON : 7th DECEMBER, 2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 8th JANAURY, 2024
JUDGMENT:
[PER- SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.]:
1) Present Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the charge-sheet filed before the JMFC
2.WP.924.2021(2).doc
Court at Satara bearing RCC No.277 of 2021 registered against the
Petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 470 and 471
of IPC.
2) Heard, Ms. Poonam Ankleshwaria, learned Advocate appearing
for the Petitioner and Mr. Ajay Patil, learned APP for the Respondent-State.
Respondent No.2 submitted the written notes of arguments, but none
appeared for Respondent No.2 when the Petition taken up for final hearing.
Perused the Petition, the documents enclosed and the written notes of
arguments.
3) In this Petition, Rule was issued on 31 st July, 2023, and interim
relief was granted. At that time, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2
waived the service of notice.
4) The facts giving rise to this Petition are as under:
4.1) At the relevant time, Respondent No.2 was working as Senior
Chief Manager, Lokmat, at Kolhapur and the Petitioner was working as P.T.S
Key Board Operator, in Lokmat, Branch at Sawantwadi, District Sindhudurg.
By an order dated 27th May, 2020, the Petitioner was transferred from
Sawantwadi to Satara. The Petitioner joined the new branch at Satara on 4 th
June, 2020. Thereafter, on 13th June, 2020, the Petitioner submitted an
Application for reimbursement of the traveling expenses enclosing traveling
2.WP.924.2021(2).doc
bill of Rs.8,000/-, issued by Arihant Tours and Travels, Kini, Distrist Kolhpur.
Said Bill was processed and Rs.8000/- were reimbursed to the Petitioner.
4.2) Thereafter, the company suspected the genuineness of the said
bill and hence conducted an inquiry through Santosh Sakhare, Manager,
H.R. and Admin. During the said inquiry, Mahavir Patil, owner of Arihant
Tours and Travel disclosed that, even though the said bill is in the name of
his firm, it was not issued to the Petitioner. According to Mahavir Patil, in
fact, he had given that blank bill to his friend Sunil Shinde on his demand.
On enquiry with Sunil Shinde, he revealed that, he has a private Maruti Car
bearing registration MH-09-EM-2708. He deals in local transport. Mr. Sunil
Shinde further stated that, he had carried the domestic articles of the
Petitioner from Sawantwadi to Satara in the said vehicle. At that time, the
Petitioner demanded him only a blank bill without putting the amount
therein. Accordingly, he gave a blank bill to the Petitioner. Then, the
Petitioner pasted a revenue stamp on that bill and asked Sunil Shinde to
signed there. Accordingly, and trusting the Petitioner Sunil Shinde signed on
the bill. Then the Petitioner paid Rs.4,000/- to Sunil Shinde. However, later
on the Petitioner falsely wrote Rs.8,000/- on the said blank bill and claimed
that amount as Transport Allowances (T.A.). Thus, the Petitioner cheated the
Company by Rs.4,000/-. Hence, Respondent No.2 filed the report. As a
2.WP.924.2021(2).doc
result, the impugned F.I.R. came to be registered against the Petitioner.
Hence, this Petition. Meanwhile the Police submitted the charge-sheet,
hence, necessary amendment has been made.
5) Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that, at the
relevant time, the petitioner had travelled by a private cab, because public
transport was not available due to strict COVID-19 norms prevailing then.
Undisputedly, the said bill belongs to Arihant Tours and Travels and Sunil
Shinde had signed on the said bill. However, there is no evidence that the
Petitioner has falsely wrote Rs.8,000/- on the bill. Hence, Sunil Shinde
cannot now disown his signed bill. It is highly improbable that Mr. Mahavir
Patil would give a blank bill to Mr. Sunil Shinde, without any reason. There
is no evidence as to when Mahavir Shinde gave that blank bill to Sunil
Shinde. There is no investigation as to the involvement of Mahavir Patil and
Sunil Shinde. As such, they have been given a clean chit without any basis.
The car No. MH-09-EM-2708, which is goods vehicle, is not mentioned in
the disputed bill. There is no investigation as to whether, this very vehicle
was availed for transportation by the Petitioner or not. In this background,
the statement by Sunil Shinde that the Petitioner travelled in the above car
and he gave a blank bill to the Petitioner, is not acceptable in law. With
similar allegations a crime has been registered on the report by Respondent
2.WP.924.2021(2).doc
No.2 against Subhash Wankhede, an employee of Lokmat. This can not be a
co-incidence. In this background, the conclusion is inevitable that purposely,
Mahavir Patil and Sunil Shinde have given incorrect statement against the
Petitioner at the behest of the Police.
5.1) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that, Majithia
Wage Board has passed an award against Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd. and
Lokamat is required to satisfy the said award by paying approximately Rs. 5
Crs. to its 120 employees. About 24 employees are from Jalgaon Center and
they have been pressing for implementation of the said award. Hence, the
matter has been referred to Labour Court. Since then Lokmat is harassing
the said employees to force them to settle the matter for meager amount.
The Petitioner, however, refused to accord for such settlement. Therefore,
taking illegal help of Mahavir Patil and Sunil Shinde, the Respondent No.2
filed a false FIR to force undesired settlement on the Petitioner. Thus,
present prosecution is nothing but a false, frivolous, vexatious and malicious
one.
6) Learned APP submitted that, the F.I.R. and the investigation
material clearly indicate that the Petitioner falsely wrote the amount of
Rs.8,000/- in the bill and then claimed that amount. Thus, the Petitioner
has cheated his office. As such, there is prima facie case against the
2.WP.924.2021(2).doc
Petitioner of having committed the offences stated in the charge-sheet.
6.1) Similar is the contention of Respondent No.2 in the written
notes of arguments. In support thereof Respondent No.2 has relied on the
following decisions, which is a settled principle of law.
i) Kaptan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2021) 9 SCC 35],
ii) State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty [2021 SCC OnLine SC 1222],
iii) Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka [(2022) 2 SCC 129].
7) We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light
of the material available on record. On such a consideration, we found that,
the F.I.R. has been duly corroborated by the statement of other witness. The
disputed bill bears the title of Arihant Tours and Travels, at Kini, Taluka
Haathkanangale, District Kolhapur. Mahavir Patil and Sunil Shinde both are
residing at Kini, which is far away from Sawantvadi. However, the Petitioner
did not explain as to why Sunil Shinde and Mahavir Patil have stated against
him. In this background, and considering the investigation material, we are
of the opinion that, there is substance in the F.I.R. and the investigation
material. Hence, it is safe to infer that there is a prima facie case against
the Petitioner of having committed the alleged offences. Hence, he
cannot escape said prosecution. It is trite position of law that the power of
quashing should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in rare
2.WP.924.2021(2).doc
cases. At the stage of discharge and/or cosidering the application under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Courts are not required to go into the merits of
the allegations and/or evidence in detail as if conducting a mini-trial.
8) In view of the above discussion, we find that there are no merits
in the Petition and it is liable to be dismissed.
8.1) Criminal Writ Petition No.924 of 2021 is accordingly dismissed.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J)
