Dambaji S/O Yadav Gadgelwar And Another vs The District Caste Certificate ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 769 Bom

Bombay High Court

Dambaji S/O Yadav Gadgelwar And Another vs The District Caste Certificate ... on 22 January, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:1151-DB


                                                                       apl.113.2023.judgment.odt
                                                     (1)

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                       CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.113 OF 2023

                1.     Abhijeet Pandharinath Sakharkar,
                       Aged about 45 Years,
                       Occupation : Business,
                       Residence of Near Jod Deul,
                       Pathanpura Road,
                       Chandrapur,
                       Tahsil and District Chandrapur.

                2.     Komal Abhijeet Sakharkar,
                       Aged about 37 Years,
                       Occupation : Housewife,
                       Resident of Near Jod Deul,
                       Pathanpura Road, Chandrapur,
                       Tahsil and District Chandrapur.              ..... APPLICANTS

                                             // VERSUS //


                1.     State of Maharashtra through
                       Police Station Officer, Ram Nagar,
                       Chandrapur,
                       Tahsil and District Chandrapur.

                2.     Ravindra Ramesh Thakare,
                       Aged about 38 Years,
                       Occupation : Service in the
                       office of the Assistant Charity
                       Commissioner, Chandrapur,
                       Ram Nagar in the District of
                       Chandrapur.                               ....NON-APPLICANTS

                -------------------------------------------
                        Mr. Rohan Deo, Advocate for the applicants.
                        Mr. A. M. Kadukar, APP for the non-applicant No.1/State.
                -------------------------------------------

                                      CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
                                      RESERVED ON   : 16.01.2026
                                      PRONOUNCED ON : 22.01.2026

                JUDGMENT :

apl.113.2023.judgment.odt

1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the

parties.

2. Present application is preferred by the applicants

seeking quashing and setting aside the FIR bearing Crime

No.950/2022 registered with Police Station Ram Nagar, Chandrapur,

District Chandrapur for the offence punishable under Sections 466

and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and

consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing RCC

No.1023/2025 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Chandrapur.

3. The applicants are trustees of Sankalp Bahuddeshiya

Sanstha, Chandrapur. The crime is registered against the

applicants on the basis of a report lodged by the non-applicant No.2

Ravindra Ramesh Thakare, on the direction of the office of the

Assistant Charity Commissioner, Chandrapur. As per the

allegations, in the FIR in the year 2009, applicants in connivance

with employee of the office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner,

Chandrapur, inducted the name of the applicant No.2 as a member

of the Society trust by recording an entry to that effect in the public

register maintained by the office of the Assistant Charity

Commissioner. It is further revealed that this fact was noticed by

the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner in Enquiry Proceeding apl.113.2023.judgment.odt

No.1034/2016, therefore, the Assistant Charity Commissioner

issued directions for registration of crime.

4. The applicant No.1 and the husband of the applicant

No.2 were founder members of the Society. The Society has been

managed by the family members of applicant No.1. One of the

trustees Mrs. Kaushalyabai Khanke passed away on 07.11.2009

therefore, a notice was published on 04.12.2009 to call the meeting

of the Executive Committee which was scheduled on 10.12.2009.

By resolution dated 10.12.2009, the name of the applicant No.2 was

inducted as trustee. Pursuant to the resolution, they approached

the office of the Charity Commissioner to know the procedure to be

adopted. They approached the office of the Assistant Charity

Commissioner, Chandrapur. The employee of the said office

Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh misled them and obtained amount of

Rs.500/- from them and informed them that he would do the

necessary which is required to bring the name of the applicant No.2

on record. It is an admitted position that no change report was

filed. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the

crime against the present applicants.

5. Heard learned counsel Mr. Rohan Deo for the applicants,

who submitted that it is not disputed that though it is a public trust,

but it is run by the family members. One of the trustees

Mrs. Kaushalyabai Khanke passed away on 07.11.2009. By apl.113.2023.judgment.odt

following the due procedure, the notice was published on

04.12.2009 and by passing a resolution on 10.12.2009, the name of

the applicant No.2 was inducted. Being the applicant No.1 was not

aware about the procedure, he approached the office of the

Assistant Charity Commissioner, Chandrapur and he was misled by

one of the employees, who subsequently reported to be dead. The

said employee has obtained money from the present applicant No.1

and disclosed to him that he will do the needful, therefore, the

applicants have not filed the change report as they were under the

belief that they followed the procedure to induct the name of the

applicant No.2. On 02.08.2016 first time summons was issued to

them to appear on 10.08.2016 with relevant documents. The

applicant No.1 being the then Secretary of the Society submitted his

reply and affidavit on 16.08.2016 explaining all the facts. However,

after four years the FIR came to be lodged against them alleging

that they have committed the offence of forgery by inducting the

name of the applicant No.2 in the register which was maintained in

the office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner. He invited my

attention towards the order passed by the Assistant Charity

Commissioner, Chandrapur. Annexure - D is the notice of a

meeting and the agenda of the meeting and Annexure - E is the

type copy of the said resolution. Annexure - F is the notice received

from the office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Chandrapur

to the applicant No.1. Annexure - G is the affidavit submitted by apl.113.2023.judgment.odt

the applicant No.1 in the office of the Assistant Charity

Commissioner. I have also perused the order passed by the

Assistant Charity Commissioner, who has observed that during

enquiry, it revealed to her that without filing the change report, the

change was made in the relevant registers which shows the

intention of the present applicants to induct the name without

following the due procedure and thereby there is a prima facie

material to connect the present applicants with the alleged offence.

The statements of the witness also discloses that during enquiry in

an Enquiry Application No.1034/2016 it was revealed that the

present applicants were involved in the offence of forgery. He

submitted that even accepting the allegation as it is, there is

nothing on record to show that the present applicants have

committed the said forgery. Admittedly, the offence was also

registered against the employee of the Assistant Charity

Commissioner, who subsequently died.

6. Learned APP strongly opposed the said application on

the ground that considering the fact that on the directions of the

Assistant Charity Commissioner, the crime was registered. He was

also invited my attention towards the documents i.e. the extract of

the register which shows that the name of the applicant No.2 was

inducted by scratching the earlier name and without following the

due procedure. Thus, he submitted that considering the prima facie apl.113.2023.judgment.odt

case, there is sufficient material to frame the charge against the

present applicants, and therefore, the application deserves to be

rejected.

7. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the entire

investigation papers and the charge sheet, it reveals that there is no

dispute that the applicant No.1 was the member of the charitable

trust namely Sankalp Bahuddeshiya Sanstha, Chandrapur. It is an

admitted position that the name of the applicant No.2 was taken as

a trustee of the said trust by passing a resolution on 10.12.2009.

The resolution which is on record shows that after the death of the

earlier trustee Mrs. Kaushalyabai Khanke, her name was taken by

passing a resolution in her name. Perusal to the resolution, the

change report requires to be filed which was not filed by the

applicant No.1. The affidavit filed by the applicant No.1 before the

Assistant Charity Commissioner explains that he approached the

office, but as he was told by one of the employee that he has to pay

only fees and would do the needful, and therefore, after payment of

the fees, he returned back and not filed the change report. Thus,

the affidavit of the applicant No.1 is selfexplanatory. Admittedly,

the various documents especially extracts of the register shows that

on various pages, the name of the applicant No.2 was inserted by

scratching the earlier name. Now, the only question is whether the apl.113.2023.judgment.odt

material which is before the Court is sufficient to try the present

applicant for the offence.

8. In order to implicate the accused for the commission of

offence under Section 465 and 466 of the Indian Penal Code, it is

incumbent upon the complainant to plead the role of each accused

in the making or manufacturing of the document in question.

Showing omnibus statement that they have committed the offence

under Sections 465 and 466 is not sufficient. In order to make out

a prima facie case against the applicants the allegations contained

in the compliant are to the effect that they fulfilled the requirement

of the offence. What is necessary at the time of issuing summons

against the accused by the Magistrate is that if the allegation as it

stands has been proved, whether on that allegation the accused

were liable to be convicted. Such casual allegations definitely is not

sufficient to prove the charges against the accused. The manner in

which the documents has been forged has to be clearly and

meticulously pleaded then only the creation of the false document

as defined under Sections 465 and 466 can be established.

9. Upon careful reading of the allegation in the FIR against

the applicants in its entirety. I am of the opinion that even if the

allegations in the complaint are taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute to show that

it was the present applicants who have inserted the name of the apl.113.2023.judgment.odt

applicant No.2 in the said register. The allegations made in the FIR

by the complainant also 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 them.

10. The legal position is here as far as the quashing of the

proceeding at the initial stage is concerned. It is well settled that

when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the

test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted

allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. In view of

this, the allegation contained in the complaint, as extracted above

are not sufficient to implicate the present applicants to show that

they have committed the offence of forgery by inserting the name

of the applicant No.2 in the said register. The contention raised by

the applicants cannot be ruled out. In the nature of the offence the

manner in which the documents have been forged is also not stated

clearly in the FIR or the subsequent statements of the witnesses.

11. In the light of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs Bhajan Lal and

others reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 wherein the Hon'ble

Apex Court laid down the principles/guidelines while considering the

application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

which are reproduced for the reference.

apl.113.2023.judgment.odt

"(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) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) 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.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(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) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the apl.113.2023.judgment.odt

institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(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."

12. In the light of above discussion, in my view, even if the

allegations in the FIR 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. The allegation made in the FIR 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. Hence, criminal

application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass

following order:

ORDER

(i) The application is allowed.

(ii) The FIR in connection with Crime No.950/2022 registered with Police Station Ram Nagar, Chandrapur for the offence punishable under Sections 466 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing RCC No.1023/2025 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur, is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of the present applicants.

apl.113.2023.judgment.odt

The application is disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

Sarkate.

Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 23/01/2026 14:46:24