Bombay High Court
Dattatrya Tulshiram Shembale vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 10 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:30843
1 cri wp 1730.23 & cri wp 1334.25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1730 OF 2023
Dattatrya Tulshiram Shembale .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1334 OF 2025
Dattatrya Tulshiram Shembale .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Panditrao S. Anerao, Advocate for the Petitioner in both
matters.
Mrs. M. N. Ghanekar, A.P.P. for the Respondent No. 1 in both
matters.
Shri N. B. Khandare, Senior Advocate i/by Shri M. P. Tripathi,
Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 5 in Cri. W. P. No. 1730
of 2023.
Shri N. B. Khandare, Senior Advocate i/by Shri M. P. Tripathi,
Advocate for the Respondent No. 4 in Cri. W. P. No. 1334 of 2025.
Shri N. G. Naik Thigle, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3 in
both matters.
Shri D. V. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4 in
Cri. W. P. No. 1730 of 2023.
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 10TH NOVEMBER, 2025.
FINAL ORDER :
. Heard both sides finally with their consent.
2 cri wp 1730.23 & cri wp 1334.25
2. In both matters petitioner is original complainant, who is
aggrieved by order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the Trial Court
rejecting his application U/Sec. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure Code (for the sake of brevity and convenience
hereinafter referred as to the "Cr. P. C.") and distinct judgment
and order dated 16.02.2023 passed by the Revisional Court in
Criminal Revision Petition No. 125 of 2018 and Criminal
Revision Petition No. 110 of 2018 confirming the order of the
Trial Court. Only difference in both the proceedings is that
direction to register regular criminal case issued by the Trial
Court is quashed in Criminal Revision Application No. 110 of
2018. The net result is that O.M.C.A. No. 329 of 2017 preferred
by the petitioner stands rejected out-rightly.
3. Learned counsel Mr. Anerao appearing for the petitioner
submits that Revisional Court in the impugned judgment failed
to look into the documents showing incriminating role. It is
submitted that a strong case is made out showing
misappropriation of the funds and the mischief of the
respondents-accused and the investigation should have been
directed. It is submitted that report dated 16.08.2013 and
27.11.2024 disclose a private vehicle was being shown in the
name of different persons and false and bogus bills were raised.
It is submitted that there is foundation to infer that twice in a
day a bill of consumption of 65 liters for the self same vehicle was
raised. Learned counsel has adverted my attention to the
3 cri wp 1730.23 & cri wp 1334.25
measurement book to show the erasers. It is further submitted
that Revisional Court should not have quashed the direction of
registration of regular criminal case issued by the Trial Court.
4. Learned senior counsel Mr. N. B. Khandare for the
respondent Nos. 2 and 5 in Cri. W. P. No. 1730 of 2023 and
respondent No. 4 in Cri. W. P. No. 1334 of 2025 would support
the impugned orders. His submissions are adopted by the
learned counsels appearing for other respondents. It is
submitted that categorical findings are recorded by the Trial
Court after considering documents produced by the petitioner
after remand. Revisional Court has only confirmed the findings
after considering the documents produced on record. It is
submitted that the conduct of the petitioner is noticed by the
Division Bench. It is further submitted that already competent
authority conducted due inquiry and matter was closed vide
order dated 19.05.2015, which cannot be doubted. It is further
submitted that the measurement report which is sought to be
relied upon by the petitioner pertains to the consumption of
diesel for generator in a rest house. No case is made out to cause
any interference in the impugned judgment and order.
5. The petitioner had filed O.M.C.A. No. 329 of 2017 against
accused persons, who are the officers of the P.W.D. at the
relevant time alleging that a private vehicle was procured for
official work and government funds are embezzled by showing
false bills and manipulation of record. After securing
4 cri wp 1730.23 & cri wp 1334.25
information under the Right to Information Act, petitioner filed
complaint relying on the reports. The directions were solicited
for registering offence against them.
6. The Trial Court rejected the application vide order dated
19.04.2018. Being aggrieved revision was filed, which was
allowed partly and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court
for deciding afresh by considering the documents on record. The
complainant was permitted to place on record various
documents. Those are referred to in the order passed by the
Trial Court which is under challenge. By order dated 10.09.2018
application was rejected, but direction was given to register
regular criminal case.
7. It reveals from record that a letter dated 22.05.2013 was
issued by the Chief Officer exonerating accused. Inquiry report
dated 27.11.2014 prepared by the Vigilance and Quality Control
Officer was considered. By the government order dated
19.05.2015, the respondent No. 4 - Mr. Bahekar in Cri. W. P. No.
1730 of 2023 was exonerated. No prima facie material was found
to show the involvement of the accused persons. The findings
recorded by the Trial Court are confirmed by the Revisional
Court. There are concurrent findings of facts.
8. The Revisional Court also dealt with the documents
produced on record by the complainant in confirming the findings
of the Trail Court. The Revisional Court has recorded following
5 cri wp 1730.23 & cri wp 1334.25
findings against the petitioner :
(i) Certain administrative irregularities regarding fuel bills
cannot be equated with the incriminating role.
(ii) The petitioner has oblique intention in making complaints
against the accused persons considering the observations of
the Division Bench in P. I. L. No. 97 of 2012.
(iii) The proceedings are initiated to wreck the vengeance and
no material is found to issue the direction for
investigation.
(iv) Having concluded that no material was found for issuing
direction of investigation, further direction to put up the
matter for verification is unwarranted.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out
any perversity or patent illegality in the findings recorded by the
Courts below. The measurement report to which my attention is
adverted does not show that it is in respect of use of vehicle in
question. The possibility that it is in respect of the diesel
consumed for generator of rest house cannot be ruled out. No
case is made out to cause any interference in the impugned
order. The criminal writ petitions are dismissed.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]
bsb/Nov. 25
