[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sahruddin Hasanbai Rayani vs The State Of Mah, Thr P.So. Ghatanji on 3 December, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:13474-DB
914 apl 367.19. judge.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 367 OF 2019
1. Sahruddin Hasanbai Rayani
Aged about 78 years,
Occupation: Business and
agriculturist,
R/o Shahid Society, Yavatmal
Tal. And Distt. Yavatmal
2. Anirudha Arvind Lonkar
Aged about 53 years,
Occupation:-
Advocate/Agriculturist,
R/o Awdhotwadi, Yavatmal
...APPLICANTS
3. Raju @ Janmohammad
Rahemtullah Virani
Aged about 54 years, Occu.
Business/Agriculturist,
R/o Shahid Society, Yavatmal
4. Sanjay Maganlal Gadhiya
Aged about 53 years,
Occ. Business/Agriculturist,
R/o Ghatanji, Taluka Ghatanji
District Yavatmal
5. Jalal Janmohannad Gilani,
Aged about 57 years,
Occu. Business/Agriculturist,
R/o Dhamangaon Road,
Yavatmal, Yavatmal
6. Ramakant Uttamgir Giri,
Aged about 78 years,
Occ. Retired, R/o Ghatanji,
Yavatmal
// V E R S U S //
914 apl 367.19. judge.odt
2
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station House
Officer, Ghatanji Tal: Ghatanji
and Distt. Yavatmal
2. Shailesh s/o Gulabsing Thakur,
Aged about 50 years, Occ.
Cultivator, R/o Sant Maroti
Maharaj Ward, Ghatanji, Tq.
Ghatanji, NON-APPLICANTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Abhay Sambre Advocate for the applicants.
Mr M.J. Khan, APP for non-applicant No.1/State.
Mr. T.S. Deshpande, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J. AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 25.11.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT : 03.12.2025
J U D G M E N T :
(PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learned
counsel for the parties.
3. The applicants have filed the present application
praying for quashing of First Information Report No.10/2019
dated 04.01.2019 registered with the Police Station Ghatangi
District Yavatmal for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468
914 apl 367.19. judge.odt
and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short,
'I.P.C.').
4. The facts as stated in the application are as under:-
The applicants are the Executive Members of a Public
Trust namely "Shikshan Prasark Mandal, Ghatanji" District
Yavatmal" which runs schools and colleges under the aspices of the
said Trust. It is stated in the application that the said Trust applied
to the Municipal Council, Ghatanji for permission to extend the
building of school situated at plot No.60 as the space was
insufficient for accommodation. In the said application, it was
submitted that the Municipal Council has already granted
permission for ground floor, and since the said Trust was carrying
out construction on first floor based on due permission as the
application was not decided within the stipulated period. However,
the said Municipal Council informed the Trust that the permission
sought could not be granted and vide letter dated 02.01.2006, the
Trust was asked to stop the construction. In response to this the
said Trust made a representation on 04.01.2006 but of no use.
The Trust thereafter, filed writ petition bearing No.1520/2006
914 apl 367.19. judge.odt
through its President challenging the impugned order of rejection
of the application and action of stopping of work along with the
notice of demolishing of construction. It is further stated in the
application that this Court while issuing notices granted an order
of status quo on 27.03.2006. The non-applicant No.2 in the
present matter filed an application for intervention in the said writ
petition but the same came to be rejected. However, during
pendency of the said writ petition a communication dated
16.10.2006 was allegedly issued by Director of Town Planning to
withdraw the writ petition in question so that permission for
construction can be issued. Relying on the said communication,
the Trust withdrew the writ petition on 13.03.2008.
5. It is further stated in the application that thereafter it
was realised that the communication dated 16.10.2006 is not
genuine and therefore, the said Trust immediately filed
Miscellaneous Civil Application bearing ST. No.15731/2008 along
with Civil Application No.7995/2008 for recalling the said order or
reviewing the same. This Court thereafter granted liberty to the
applicants to file a fresh petition against the original cause of
914 apl 367.19. judge.odt
action vide its order dated 24.10.2008. Pursuant to the said order,
the applicants also filed petition/appeal before the Hon'ble
Minister, Urban Development Department, State of Maharashtra
for grant of permission to construct and operate the school on the
first floor of survey No.60 at Mouza Ghatanji.
6. However, thereafter non-applicant No.2 claiming that
Director of Town Planning, Pune did not issue the said
communication on the basis of which the earlier writ petition was
withdrawn, filed a private Criminal Complaint Case No.14/2019
against only one Shri Sadaruddin Alibhai Gilani, the President of
the Society. The said Criminal Complaint Case number was
registered as 14/2009. The said case was dismissed by the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ghatanji by its order dated
23.07.2009 in view of Section 195(b)(ii) of Criminal Procedure
Code holding therein that complainant is not entitled to file the
complaint. The President of the Society filed a Criminal Writ
Petition bearing No.139/2018 before this Court challenging the
order of Sessions Court which came to be dismissed on
23.07.2018. Thus, the complaint before the learned Judicial
914 apl 367.19. judge.odt
Magistrate First Class, Ghatanji was restored and an order was
passed below Exh.25 on 01.08.2018 thereby directing non-
applicant No.1 to conduct investigation under Section 156(3) of
the Cr.P.C.
7. On the basis of the said order, non-applicant No.1
registered First Information Report on 04.01.2019 and has also
made present applicants as accused therein. It is this First
Information Report which is challenged in the present application
on various grounds as stated in the same.
8. We have heard Mr. Abhay Sambre, learned counsel for
the applicants, Mr. M.J. Khan, learned APP for the State along with
Mr. T.S. Deshpande, learned counsel for non-applicant No.2.
9. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that
perusal of the First Information Report clearly shows that no case
is made out against the present applicants as same is lodged with
malafide intention only to harass them. He further points out that
in the original complaint, the complainant/non-applicant No.2
914 apl 367.19. judge.odt
herein has only named the President of the Society and not the
present applicants and in fact there were no allegation against the
present applicants. He therefore, submits that no prima-facie case
is made out against the present applicants and they are falsely
implicated just because they are office bearers of the society. He
therefore, prays for quashing the criminal proceedings against
them.
10. Per contra, learned APP as also learned counsel for
non-applicant No.2 while opposing the contentions made by
learned counsel for the applicants states that non-applicant No.1
had conducted the investigation by recording the statement of the
complainant and have further obtained the relevant document
from the complainant which includes the alleged forged document
dated 16.10.2006 submitted by the said Trust before this Court
while withdrawing the petition. He further submits that they have
obtained one more document dated 20.06.2008 issued by the
Town Planning Department stating that the alleged fraudulent
document dated 16.10.2006 was never issued by the Town
Planning Department. It is further stated that perusal of the
914 apl 367.19. judge.odt
material collected by the answering non-applicant prima facie,
reveals the role of the present applicants in the said crime as they
were the the members of the said Society/Trust. He therefore,
prays for rejection of the application.
11. Learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2 supports
the learned APP and submits that this is not a fit case to exercise
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure
Code.
12. In the backdrop of these facts, we have perused the
material on record. Filing of writ petition by said Trust and its
withdrawal on the basis of letter dated 16.10.2006 is not disputed.
It is also not disputed that on realising that said letter was forged,
the said Trust immediately filed a Review Application on which the
order was passed on 24.10.2008 granting liberty to the Trust to file
fresh petition against the original cause of action. In that view of
the matter, the subsequent criminal complaint filed by the non-
applicant No.2 leading to lodging of First Information Report is
perused. As can be seen from the said criminal complaint the only
914 apl 367.19. judge.odt
non-applicant in the said complaint is erstwhile President of the
Trust i.e. Sadaruddin Alibhai Gilani. Thus, the present applicants
do not find place in the array of non-applicant/accused in the
criminal complaint. Further more perusal of the criminal complaint
would reveal that no specific role is attributed to the present
applicants. Even in the First Information Report their is no role
attributed to the present applicants so as to implicate them under
various sections as mentioned in the First Information Report. It
seems that only because the applicants were members of the
Executive Committee, they are roped in as accused persons. Thus,
there are no material particulars as required in law.
13. As far as offence under Section 420 is concerned, it is
settled principle of law that for attracting the said offence
necessary ingredients would be dishonest intention right at the
inception i.e. beginning. No such intention, much less dishonest
one is attributed to the present applicants either in the criminal
complaint filed by the non-applicant No.2 or the result of First
Information Report.
914 apl 367.19. judge.odt
14. Further more, as far as offences under Sections 468
and 471 of the IPC are concerned, they contemplate forging of
documents. It is nobody's case that the letter which led to
withdrawal of writ petition was forged by the applicants or at
their behest. In fact, the applicants had no cause or occasion to
forge the said letter as there was an ad interim order operating in
their favour. Thus, it seems that there is some mischief played by
some other persons but certainly not the applicants. The criminal
prosecution based on such vague material if allowed to be
continued would amount to abuse of process of Court. The
situation therefore, would squarely fall within laid down
parameters of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajanlal and
others reported in 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335 where
it is stated as under:-
" (a) where the allegations made in the First Information
Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support
of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence
and make out a case against the accused;
914 apl 367.19. judge.odt
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due
to private and personal grudge.
15. In that view of the matter, we therefore, pass the
following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Application is allowed.
(ii) First Information Report No.10/2019
registered at Police Station Ghatanji District Yavatmal for the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with
Section 34 of the IPC is hereby quashed and set aside to the
extent of applicants.
16. The criminal application stands disposed of.
Rule accordingly.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
[NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J] [ URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
manisha
Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 04/12/2025 10:45:10
