Bombay High Court
Rajendra Mahadeorao Zamare And Others vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Civil Lines, ... on 7 October, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:10350
Judgment Cr.WP-470-2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 470 OF 2023
...
1] Rajendra Mahadeorao Zamare,
Aged about 45 years, Occ - Service,
R/o. Kothari Watika No. 1, Akola,
Tq. And Dist. Akola.
2] Manohar Damodar Hirulkar,
Aged about 67 years, Occ - Retired,
R/o Govt. Milk Scheme, Akola,
Tq. And Dist. Akola.
3] Prakash Sitaram Chawane,
Aged about 65 years, Occ - Retired,
R/o Tukaram Hospital, Tukaram Chowk,
Akola, Tq. And Dist. Akola.
4] Prakash Pandurang Shende,
Aged about 66 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o Ridhora, Tq. Balapur, Dist. Akola.
5] Smt. Sunanda Jaychand Chopade,
Aged about 54 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Malkapur, Behind Gramin Bank,
Akola, Tq. And Dist. Akola.
6] Janardhan Onkar Malokar,
Aged about 68 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o Ram Nagar, Sudhir Colony,
Akola, Tq. And Dist. Akola.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-470-2023
2
7] Angad Namdeo Bidwe,
Aged about 64 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Behind Harihar Peth, Police Station,
Akola, Tq. And Dist. Akola.
... PETITIONERS
--VERSUS--
State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Civil Lines, Akola,
Tq. And Dist. Akola.
... RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. J.B. Gandhi, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Ms. S.V. Kolhe, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 07, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners by way of the present petition are
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-470-2023
challenging the judgment and order dated 28/06/2023 passed
in Criminal Revision No.119/2018 by the District and Sessions
Court, Akola, wherein the Revision filed by the State was
allowed by quashing and setting aside the common order
passed below Exh.-1 and Exh.-59, thereby discharging the
accused Nos.1 to 9 under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, for the offences punishable under Sections
406, 408, 420 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
3. Brief facts of the case are that:
The petitioners are the original accused persons. The
First Information Report was registered under Sections 406,
408, 420 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, against the petitioners on the basis of order under
Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is
alleged that the original complainant by name - Wasudev
Sadashiv Telgote filed complaint under Section 156 (3) of the
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-470-2023
Code of Criminal Procedure. The said complaint was allowed
and the Magistrate directed the Police to register the First
Information Report. It is alleged that the petitioners except
petitioner No.7 are the Directors of Gajanan Goverment Milk
Scheme Co-operative Society Society Ltd, Akola. Whereas, the
petitioner No.7 is the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society.
It is alleged in the First Information Report that petitioner No.1
has committed forgery by inserting Subject No.3 in the minutes
of meeting dated 01/02/1998. It is alleged that said subject
No.3 was later on inserted and it came to the knowledge of the
original complainant Mr. Telgote in the year 2000. Though, it
was brought to the notice of the Directors, the directors ignored
the objection of the complainant. Based on these allegations,
First Information Report came to be registered upon the
directions of Magistrate under Section 156(3), Investigation
was completed and charge-sheet came to be filed. Thereafter,
the petitioners filed an application at Exh.-59 under Section
239 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. The learned Chief Judicial
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-470-2023
Magistrate, Akola, vide its order dated 27/03/2018 allowed the
said application and discharged accused Nos.1 to 9. The said
order was challenged in Revision by the State. The Revisional
Court set aside the order dated 27/03/2018 passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola, by partly allowing the
Revision. Against this order, the present petition is preferred.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
there is no material to frame the charges against the
petitioners. He submits that there is no question of inserting
the subject in the minutes of meeting dated 01/02/1998, where
the subject matter was of appointment of petitioner No.1 as
Manager, for the reason that eight members, except the original
complainant-Telgote had no objection, if they wanted they
could have easily passed the aforesaid Resolution. Even the
said resolution was confirmed in the next meeting and the
original complainant - Telgote was present in all those
meetings, however, he never raised any objection, and
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-470-2023
accordingly, submits that no offences are made out against the
petitioners. He further submits that out of nine accused
persons, two have expired and the present petition is filed by
seven accused persons. On 07/07/2023, stay was granted by
this Court.
5. The learned A.P.P. submits that a meeting was
convened on 01/02/1998, wherein only three subjects were
discussed and to that effect the resolutions were passed,
however, subject No.3 was inserted later on, and accordingly,
the said resolution on subject No.3 was passed thereby
appointing the petitioner No.1-Mr. Zamare as the Manager of
the society. She further submits that, there is tampering and
overwriting as the Subject No.3 was converted to Subject No.4
which is apparent on the face of record. She further submits
that there is sufficient material against the petitioners to frame
the charges, and therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-470-2023
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned A.P.P. At the outset, the learned counsel for
the petitioners does not press the petition for petitioner No.1,
i.e., Rajendra Mahadeorao Zamare, and therefore, the petition
is dismissed to the extent of petitioner No.1.
7. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the
allegations are in respect of insertion of subject No.3 in the
minutes of the meeting dated 01/02/1998. Considering the
subject matter of the said resolution it is apparent that it would
only benefit Mr. Zamare, i.e., Petitioner No.1. The Directors of
the society or the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Society
are not being benefited by forging resolution which is passed in
the meeting dated 01/02/1998. Secondly, insofar as the
Directors are concerned, i.e., petitioner Nos.2 to 6, absolutely
there is nothing on record which demonstrates the role of those
Directors in crime in question. As was argued by the learned
A.P.P. that though the original complainant brought this fact to
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-470-2023
the notice of the directors of the society, however, they have
not taken any action. This could be at the most considered to be
negligence, however, in the entire investigation papers, there is
no material against the Directors or the Deputy Registrar. It is
an admitted fact that the petitioner No.1 is an employee of the
society, however, it appears that for his benefit the said subject
was inserted in the minutes of meeting dated 01/02/1998. It
could be said that if at all the Managing Committee of the
Society wanted to appoint Mr. Zamare, they could have passed
the resolution by adopting legal mode, however, it appears
from the record that insertion was made for the benefit of the
petitioner No.1.
8. It is pertinent to note that subsequently the Managing
Committee in its meeting dated 08/04/2003 decided to
forward the proposal to the Deputy Registrar for its approval.
The Deputy Registrar on the basis of the record has approved
the resolution, and accordingly, the petitioner No.1 was
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-470-2023
appointed as the Manager. From all the documentary evidence
as well as the statements recorded during the investigation,
there is no material to attract the provisions of Sections 406,
408, 420 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, against petitioner Nos.2 to 7, and therefore, the
ingredients of these sections are not satisfied. Therefore, the
aforesaid petitioners cannot be held responsible for insertion of
subject No.3 in the minutes of meeting dated 01/02/1998. In
this view of the matter, following order is passed:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Writ Petition is partly allowed;
(ii) The petition is dismissed against petitioner No.1, as
not pressed;
(iv) The order dated 28/06/2023 is quashed and set
aside, only to the extent of petitioner Nos.2 to 7;
(v) Rule is made absolute in above terms.
[ M. M. NERLIKAR, J ]
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
