Bombay High Court

Shrikant Tarachand Diwate vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 19 June, 2025

Author: Madhav J. Jamdar

Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar

2025:BHC-AS:26425
                                                                                   902-APL-568-2012.doc


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.568 OF 2012
                    Shrikant Tarachand Diwate                        ...Applicant
                          Versus
                    The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                  ...Respondents
                    _______________________________________________________________
                    Ms. Anita A. Agarwal a/w Ms. Ashwini B. Jadhav, for the Applicant.
                    Mr. Prathamesh Deshpande, for the Respondent No.2.
                    Mr. D. J. Haldankar, APP for the Respondent-State.
                    _______________________________________________________________

                                                           CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

                                                           DATED:     19th JUNE 2025
                    JUDGMENT.:

1. Heard Ms. Anita Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the

Applicant, Mr. Prathamesh Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for

the Respondent No.2 and Mr. D. J. Haldankar, learned APP for the

Respondent-State.

2. By the present Criminal Application, filed under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC") the Applicant is

challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 11 th January,

2012 issuing process against the Applicant passed by the learned JMFC,

Junnar in Criminal Case No.125 of 2008 renumbered as R.C.C. No.7 of

2012. The Applicant is also praying that the consequential actions taken

including filing of charge-sheet be quashed and set aside.

3. It is the submission of Ms. Aagarwal, learned Counsel appearing

for the Applicant that the entire action taken is for the malafide

902-APL-568-2012.doc

purpose. It is her submission that, on several occasions, the Applicant

has been removed from the service of the Respondent No.2 and

thereafter he has been directed by the Court to be reinstated and every

time he has been denied the relief of reinstatement as immediately the

Applicant has been again removed from the service. It is submitted that,

finally, when the Applicant was reinstated he had attained age of

superannuation and therefore direction was issued to pay him all

retirement benefits as well as pension. It is her submission that to deny

the said relief false criminal case has been lodged against the Applicant.

Ms. Agarwal, learned Counsel submits that the present age of the

Applicant is 74 years. She therefore submits that the relief sought in the

Application be granted as the criminal case is filed for the malafide and

oblique purpose.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing

for the Respondent No.2, submitted that he has instructions that the

Respondent No.2-Subhash Vidya Mandir will not be pursuing the said

criminal case.

5. Mr. Haldankar, learned APP states that as the learned Single

Judge has granted stay to the Criminal proceedings, the Criminal

proceedings have not proceeded thereafter.

6. Before considering the contention of the parties on merits, the

Applicant has filed a detailed synopsis along with the Criminal

902-APL-568-2012.doc

Application. The said synopsis reads as under:-

"1. The Petitioner is an Indian Inhabitant of District Pune residing at the address mentioned in the cause title.

2. The Respondent No. 1 is a State of Maharashtra; the Respondent No. 2 is an Educational Institution registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860 and also under the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950, which is the original Complainant in a complaint filed against the Petitioner in the Court of J.M.F.C., Junnar being Complaint No. 125/2008.

3. The Petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher with the school namely Subhash Vidya Mandir run by the Respondent No. 2 since 10/06/1974 and was promoted in June 1999 to the post of Supervisor.

4. The Petitioner was promoted on the post of Headmaster from 01/11/2003 vide order delivered to the Petitioner on 10/11/2003 which appointment was accepted by the Petitioner vide letter dated 12/11/2003.

5. Surprisingly on the same day, the President of Respondent No. 2 demanded a letter from the Petitioner waiving his rights to the post of Head Master and when refused, the Petitioner was abused, threatened and assaulted on 14/11/2003 by the said President on the flimsy grounds of signing muster without his permission.

6. On 29/11/2003, the Petitioner lodged a Police Complaint at Narayangaon Police Station against the President of Respondent No. 2 and on 25/02/2004, the Petitioner sent a legal notice to the Respondent No. 2 for allowing him to take charge of the post of Head Master with retrospective effect and since no reply was received, the Petitioner filed an Appeal to the School Tribunal Pune which was allowed vide Judgment and Order dated 26/04/2006.

7. The Writ Petition No. 4499 of 2006 preferred by the Respondent No. 2 against the said order is admitted by

902-APL-568-2012.doc

the Honourable High Court and is pending.

8. The Respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner and after holding an enquiry, the Petitioner was found guilty of the charges leveled against him and was reduced in rank on 12/07/2004 by way of punishment as a result of the alleged enquiry.

9. The Petitioner challenged the said action before the School Tribunal Pune by way of an appeal which was allowed vide Judgment and Order dated 31/07/2006 holding his reduction of rank as illegal.

10. The said order was impugned by the Respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 6943 of 2006 which is pending before this Honourable Court.

11. The Respondent No. 2 issued a notice of compulsory retirement of the Petitioner from the School on 13/06/2006 to be effective after 3 months.

12. The said notice was challenged by the Petitioner before the School Tribunal Pune by filing an appeal which was initially rejected on the ground of delay by order dated 15/09/2006 which was subsequently condoned by the Honourable High Court in Writ Petition No.2554 of 2007 vide order dated 18/10/2007.

13. The appeal of the Petitioner was ultimately allowed by the School Tribunal Pune vide Judgment and Order dated 22/04/2008 and Respondent No. 2 was directed to reinstate the Petitioner with full back wages.

14. In the meantime, the Petitioner was relieved from the services of the Respondent No. 2 from 15/09/2006 under the guise of compulsory retirement.

15. The Petitioner challenged the said action before the School Tribunal Pune by filing an appeal on the ground of case of otherwise termination which was rejected by vide Judgment and Order dated 03/04/2007. The Petitioner has challenged the said order in Writ Petition No. 7721 of 2007 which is admitted and pending for

902-APL-568-2012.doc

final hearing.

16. In the pending Writ Petition No. 7721 of 2007, the Petitioner preferred an application being Civil Application No. 1415 of 2009 for payment of back wages which was allowed by the Honourable Court vide order dated 29/06/2009 directing the Respondent No. 2 herein along with other Respondents in the said application to pay monthly pension of the Petitioner within one month from the date of said order and also to pay back wages if not already paid.

17. The Petitioner has already preferred Contempt Petition No. 380 of 2009 before this Honourable Court for non- compliance of the order dated 29/06/2009 which is admitted vide order dated 26/10/2010 and pending for final hearing.

18. The Respondent No. 2 has all along made deliberate efforts to harass the Petitioner and keep him out of his job, by filing one case after another.

19. The Petitioner had challenged the compulsory retirement order, which was set aside in Appeal No. 44 of 2007 by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune by Judgment and Order dated 24/04/2008.

20. The Respondent No. 2 had challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No.3866 of 2008 and after hearing Advocate for both sides, this Honourable High Court had dismissed the same on 16/01/2009 at the admission stage itself.

21. The Respondent No. 2 preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 141 of 2010 which was also dismissed by the Honourable Division Bench by Judgment and Order dated 29/06/2010. In spite of the dismissal of Writ Petition as well as Letters Patent Appeal, the Respondent No.2 has not paid the legal dues of the Petitioner.

22. After the impugned action of compulsory retirement was set aside as being illegal, the Respondent No.2 ought to have paid the Petitioner all his dues which

902-APL-568-2012.doc

they have not complied with and have further deliberately filed Criminal Complaint No.189 of 2010 on 09/08/2010 under Sections 193, 465, 468, 471, 493 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner and the then Head Master of the School alleging that the Petitioner had committed forgery while withdrawing non-refundable amount from his provident fund in the year 1999 by submitting forged documents in respect of marriage of his daughter.

23. The Petitioner has obtained Anticipatory Bail in the said F.I.R. and is required to attend criminal court which is an additional burden on him financially. This criminal case is further alleging the payment of his retirement dues and is a deliberate attempt on the part of the Respondent No.2 to see to it that the Petitioner does not receive his Pension entitlement.

24. Much after the compulsory retirement of the Petitioner on 15/09/2006 and having failed in almost all the rounds of litigation before the School Tribunal Pune, the Respondent No.2 filed a Criminal Case No. 125 of 2008 against the Petitioner and one Mr. Vitthal Kashinath Rohokale before the J.M.F.C., Junnar alleging offences of forgery allegedly committed in the year 1999 alleging forgery by the Petitioner by withdrawing non-refundable amount from his provident fund account in the year 1999 by submitting forged documents in respect of marriage of the daughter of the Petitioner when he had no daughter.

25. The Petitioner was called upon to explain the said forgery on29/10/2005 and the same was duly replied by the Petitioner on 28/11/2005 stating that the daughter is the issue of his second wife's sister being looked after by his present wife and she is therefore his responsibility. The learned J.M.F.C. Junnar initially directed enquiry under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 at the hands of the police authorities vide order dated 16/08/2008.

26. After the enquiry, the Narayangaon Police Station filed Charge-Sheet against the Petitioner under Sections issued process against the Petitioner under Sections

902-APL-568-2012.doc

193, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code on 11/01/2012.

27. The learned J.M.F.C. Junnar, after considering the Charge-Sheet, issued summons to the Petitioner vide order dated 11/01/2012.

28. The Petitioner appeared before the learned Magistrate immediately and was released on bail. The case is now renumbered as Regular Criminal Case (R.C.C.) No.7 of 2012.

29. Hence this Petition seeking quashing of Complaint, FIR and Charge-Sheet."

(Emphasis added)

7. The perusal of the record shows that the Applicant was working

as an Assistant Teacher with the School namely Subhash Vidya Mandir

run by Respondent No.2 since 10 th June, 1974 and was promoted in

June, 1999 to the post of Supervisor. He was thereafter promoted to the

post of Head Master with effect from 1st November, 2003.

8. It is the contention of the Applicant that on very date i.e. on 10 th

November, 2003 the President of Respondent No.2 demanded a letter

from the Applicant waiving his rights to the post of Head Master and as

the Applicant refused to sign such a letter, he was abused, threatened

and assaulted on 14th November, 2003. The Applicant was constrained

to lodge a Police Complaint due to the said assault.

9. It is the case of the Applicant that as the Applicant was not

allowed to take charge of the post of Head Master, the Applicant was

required to file Appeal in School Tribunal, Pune, which was allowed by

902-APL-568-2012.doc

order dated 26th April, 2006. Although, Writ Petition No.4499 of 2006

preferred against said order is pending in this Court no stay has been

granted.

10. In the meanwhile, the Respondent No.2 issued a show cause

notice to the Applicant and by order dated 12th July, 2004 he was

reduced in rank by way of punishment. The said action was challenged

by the Applicant by filing Appeal before the School Tribunal, Pune and

by order dated 31st July, 2006 the said reduction in rank was held to be

illegal. The said action was also challenged by the Respondent No.2 by

filing Writ Petition No.6943 of 2006 and the said Writ Petition is also

pending in this Court, however, no stay has been granted.

11. Thereafter the Respondent No.2 issued a notice of compulsory

retirement to the Applicant from the School on 13 th June, 2006. The

School Tribunal, Pune allowed the Appeal challenging the same by

order dated 22nd April, 2008 and the Applicant was directed to be

reinstated with full back wages. The said order dated 22 nd April, 2008 of

the School Tribunal was challenged before a learned Single Judge by

filing Writ Petition No.3866 of 2008 and the said Writ Petition has been

dismissed by order dated 16th January, 2009. The said order dated 16 th

January, 2009 has been challenged by filing Letters Patent Appeal

No.141 of 2010 and the said Letters Patent Appeal has also been

dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 29th June,

902-APL-568-2012.doc

2010.

12. In the meanwhile, the Applicant was again relieved from the

services of the Respondent No.2 from 15 th September, 2006 under the

pretext of compulsory retirement. The said action was challenged before

the School Tribunal, Pune and the School Tribunal, Pune dismissed the

Appeal vide Judgment and Order dated 3 rd April, 2007. The Applicant

has challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No.7721 of 2007

and the said Writ Petition was admitted and pending for final hearing.

In said Writ Petition No.7721 of 2007, the Applicant preferred an

Application being Civil Application No.1415 of 2009 for payment of

back wages which was allowed by a learned Single Judge by order

dated 29th June, 2009. The Respondent No.2 - Institution has been

directed to pay monthly pension and also to pay back wages. As the said

order was not complied with, Contempt Petition No.380 of 2009 has

been filed, which is pending for final hearing.

13. The above factual position clearly shows that, there is substance

in the contention raised by Ms. Agarwal, learned Counsel, that

Respondent No.2 has all along made deliberate efforts to harass the

Applicant and kept him out of the job by removing him from service on

many occasions.

14. It is the submission of Ms. Agarwal, learned Counsel that when

the action of compulsory retirement dated 13 th June 2006 was set aside

902-APL-568-2012.doc

by the learned School Tribunal, Pune by order dated 22 nd April, 2008

and the challenge to the said order has failed vide order dated 16 th

January, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition

No.3866 of 2008 as confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court by

order dated 29th June, 2010 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.141 of

2010, thereafter, malafidely and deliberately Criminal Complaint

No.189 of 2010 was filed on 9 th August, 2010 under Sections 193, 465,

468, 471, 493 and 494 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") alleging that

the Applicant had committed forgery while withdrawing non-refundable

amount from his provident fund in the year 1999 by submitting forged

documents in respect of marriage of his daughter.

15. It is submitted by Ms. Agarwal, learned Counsel that the said

daughter is Applicant's wife's sister and said daughter was being looked

after by the present Applicant and his wife as daughter since inception

and she has been maintained through out by both of them. Her

marriage was also fixed by the Applicant and for her marriage expenses

amount has been withdrawn from his provident fund account. Ms.

Agarwal, submitted that, the Applicant withdrew the amount from his

own provident fund account and therefore there was no loss to

Respondent No.2. In fact, the marriage invitation card also mentions

that the Applicant is the father and Applicant's wife is the mother of

said daughter.

902-APL-568-2012.doc

16. The factual position on record clearly show that, a malafide

Criminal Case has been lodged against the present Applicant in the year

2010 for the incident which has taken place in the year 1999, just to the

ensure that retirement dues and pension are denied to the Applicant.

17. A learned Single Judge while admitting this Criminal Application

has passed following order on 17th April, 2013:-

"1. Heard both sides. Perused the application with all annexures thereto. Prima facie, arguable questions have been raised and, particularly, in the backdrop of the earlier disputes, differences and litigation between the parties.

2. Hence, Rule.

3. There will be an interim stay in terms of prayer clause

(c). The Respondents waive service.

4. It is clarified that since this Court has stayed further proceedings in the criminal case and has admitted this Writ Petition because, it raises arguable questions and issues, the Competent Authority not to withhold the pension of the Petitioner and if it is not released in terms of the applicable policies and regulations, it be released within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order."

(Emphasis added)

Thus, this Court specifically directed the Competent Authority not to

withhold the pension of the Applicant as apparently the case has been

filed to deny benefit of pension to the Applicant. The reference in the

said order is made to the earlier disputes, differences and litigation

between the parties. The position on record clearly shows that the

criminal case filed against the Applicant is for the malafide purpose.

902-APL-568-2012.doc

18. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v.

Bhajan Lal & Ors.1 has set out the parameters for exercise of jurisdiction

under Section 482 of CrPC. The relevant portion of Paragraph No.102,

reads as under:-

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) 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.

(2) ...

(3) ...

(4) ...

(5) 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.

(6) ...

1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

902-APL-568-2012.doc

(7) 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."

(Emphasis added)

19. The Supreme Court set out the following principles in the case of

Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat 2 in Paragraph No.16, the relevant

portion of which reads as under:-

"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

16.2. ...

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

20. Again the Supreme Court in the case of Mahmood Ali & Ors. v.

State of U. P. & Ors. 3 has reiterated the parameters laid down in the

case of Bhajan Lal (supra) and further observed in Paragraph No.12, as 2 (2017) 9 SCC 641

902-APL-568-2012.doc

under:-

"12. At this stage, we would like to observe something Important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court Invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged."

The Supreme Court has said that whenever an Accused comes before

the Court invoking either inherent powers under Section 482 of the

CrPC or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution

902-APL-568-2012.doc

to get the FIR or the Criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the

ground that the proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or

instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such

circumstances, the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR a little more

closely. It has been further held that, if the Complainant decides to

proceed against the Accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking

personal vengeance etc. then he would ensure that the FIR /Complaint

is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings and the