[Cites 24, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Sau. Mangala Devidas Budhe And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 17 March, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:4536-DB


                                                          70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt
                                                    (1)

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

                       CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.755 OF 2015

                       Anagha w/o Shashank Badge,
                       Age about 37 Years,
                       Occupation : Household work,
                       R/o. MiG-4, Hudco Colony,
                       Mangrulpir, District Washim.                     ..... APPLICANT

                                             // VERSUS //


                1.     The State of Maharashtra, through
                       Police Station Officer,
                       Police Station, Mangrulpir,
                       District Washim.

                2. Ramdas Anandrao Dongre,
                   Age 60 years,
                   Occupation : Agriculture,
                   R/o. Ward No.3, Sonkhas,
                   Taluka Mangrulir, District Washim. .... RESPONDENTS
                -------------------------------------------
                        Mrs. Radhika Raskar, Advocate for the applicant.
                        Mrs. Sneha Dhote, APP for respondent No.1/State.
                        Mr. P. R. Agrawal, Advocate for respondent No.2.
                -------------------------------------------
                                    WITH

                        CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.11 OF 2016

                1.     Swapnil Avinash Kale,
                       Aged about 40 years,
                       R/o. Post Nandgaon Khandeshwar,
                       District Amravati.

                2.     Sumeet Ashok Kadam,
                       Aged about 26 years,
                       At Post Tahsil Mangrulpir,
                       District Washim.

                3.     Dattatraya Jairam Kshirsagar,
                       Aged about 38 years,
                       At Post Tahsil Mangrulpir,
                       District Washim.                                 ..... APPLICANTS
                                         70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt
                                  (2)


                           // VERSUS //


1.   State of Maharashtra, through
     Police Station Officer,
     Mangrulpir, District Washim.

2.   Ramdas Ananda Dongre,
     Aged about 60 Years,
     Occupation : Agriculturist,
     R/o. Sonkhas Ward No.3,
     Mangrulpir,
     Tahsil Mangrulpir, District Washim.                .... RESPONDENTS

-------------------------------------------
      Mrs. Radhika Raskar, Advocate for the applicant.
      Mrs. Sneha Dhote, APP for respondent No.1/State.
      Mr. P. R. Agrawal, Advocate for respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------
                    WITH

     CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.768 OF 2015

1.   Sau. Mangala Devidas Budhe,
     Aged about 43 years,
     R/o. Mahavir Colony,
     Mangrulpir, District Washim.

2.   Shri Laxman Parasramji Jawake,
     Aged 61 Years,
     R/o. Priyadarshani Colony,
     Mangrulpir, District Washim.                     ..... APPLICANTS

                           // VERSUS //

1.   The State of Maharashtra, through
     Police Station Officer,
     Police Station, Mangrulpir,
     District Washim.

2.   Shri Ramdas Anandarao Dongre,
     Aged about 60 Years,
     R/o. Behind Afzalpurkar Vidyalaya,
     Mangrulpir, District Washim.

3.   Shri Sahebrao Vitthalrao Raut,
     Aged about 61 Years,
                                           70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt
                                    (3)

       R/o. Dhotra, Post Poti,
       Taluka Mangrulpir, District Washim.                .... RESPONDENTS

-------------------------------------------
        Mr. Anup J. Gilda, Advocate for the applicants.
        Mrs. Sneha Dhote, APP for respondent No.1/State.
        Mr. P. R. Agrawal, Advocate for respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------

                      CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
                      RESERVED ON   : 25.02.2026
                      PRONOUNCED ON : 17.03.2026

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. Admit.

3. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for

the parties.

4. These applications are preferred by the applicants therein

for quashing of the FIR in connection with Crime No.246/2015

registered with Police Station Mangrulpir, District Washim for the

offence punishable under Sections 466, 467, 468, 471, 473, 481,

474, 409, 420, 181 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing

charge sheet No.246/2015.

5. The Criminal Application (APL) No.755/2015 is filed by

Anagha w/o Shashank Badge, who was serving in Mahatma

Jyotiba Phule Vidyalaya, Dabha as a teacher and the applicants

in Criminal Application (APL) No.11/2016 namely Swapnil

Avinash Kale was Assistant Teacher, Sumeet Ashok Kadam was

70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt

Junior Clerk and Dattatraya Jairam Kshirsagar was Peon in the

said school. The applicants in Criminal Application (APL)

No.768/2015 Mangala Devidas Budhe and Laxman Jawake are

President and Secretary of Savitribai Phule Shikshan Prasarak

Mandal.

6. The complainant is the member of the Savitribai Phule

Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Mangrulpir. The Savitribai Phule

Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Mangrulpir is the Society through

which one Mahatma Jyotba Phule Vidyalaya, Dabha, Taluka

Mangrulpir, District Washim was run. The above said Society

was recognized as per order dated 16.05.2006 as per order

passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Amravati. The FIR

came to be lodged against the present applicants on an

allegation that though the recognition was granted to the said

school Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Vidyalaya, Dabha, but as there

was another school in existence in village Dabha and therefore,

the said school never started. Thus, the Mahatma Jyotiba Phule

Vidyalaya, Dabha (hereinafter referred to as 'said school') is not

in existence, there was no grant or approval for the said school.

However, the present applicants and the other co-accused sent

the proposal to transfer the said school from Dabha to Mangrulpir

and forwarded to the Education Department on 15.11.2013 on

the basis of false report and documents. The resolutions dated

06.11.2013 and 25.01.2010 in respect of transfer of the said

70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt

school from Dabha to Mangrulpir are also false and fabricated.

The consent letters of the present applicants are also forged one.

It is further alleged that applicant Anagha Badge shown that she

worked at both places and obtained the monetary benefits and

thereby cheated the Government. On the basis of the said

report, police have registered the crime against the present

applicants.

7. Heard learned counsel Mrs. Raskar for the applicant in

Criminal Application (APL) No.755/2015. She submitted that the

applicant is B.Sc. B.Ed. and there was an advertisement

published by the Savitribai Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,

Mangrulpir on 02.06.2009 for filling the posts of Assistant

Teacher. She applied for the said post and she came to be

appointed as per order dated 24.06.2009 passed by the

Secretary of the Savitribai Phule Society. Her appointment was

for two years i.e. from 26.06.2009 to 26.07.2011. As per the

appointment letter, she has joined her service on 26.06.2009

and her service came to be an end to the said Society on

27.06.2011. Thereafter, she was appointed in Zilla Parishad

Secondary School at Mangrulpir on 16.10.2012 for the period of

ten months till 30.04.2013. Accordingly, the experience

certificate was issued to her by Headmaster, Zilla Parishad,

Mangrulpir on 24.12.2014. Thereafter, she has not worked

either with the Savitribai Phule Society or to the Zilla Parishad

70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt

School, Mangrulpir. Therefore, the question of signing any

consent letter to transfer the school i.e. Mahatma Jyotiba Phule

Vidyalaya, Dabha does not arise. The alleged consent letter was

forged. It does not bear her signature. She has left the job of

the said school on 27.06.2011 and thereafter, she has no

concerned with the said school. Though, the school inspection

report dated 11.04.2009 shows her signature as a Headmaster,

but she was never appointed as a Headmaster, neither she was

promoted on the post of Headmaster, therefore, this inspection

report is also forged and without her knowledge that was

prepared and her name and signature were also forged. It is

submitted by her that there is no single document collected

during the investigation to show that at any point of time, the

present applicant was appointed as a Headmaster and she has

prepared the said inspection report and she has not received any

monetary gain by working in the said school at both places at

Dabha and at Mangrulpir. She submitted that on the contrary,

the appointment letter issued by the said Society to her

specifically shows that her appointment was for the period

26.06.2009 to 27.06.2011 and thereafter, neither her services

are extended nor she has been appointed subsequently

thereafter. Thus, she has no concern with the inspection report

or the consent letter which were prepared for transfer of the said

school. Thus, there is no prima facie material to connect her

70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt

with the alleged offence, except the reference in the consent

letter that is also not prepared by her. There is absolutely no

material collected during the investigation to show her

involvement either in the forgery or in getting monetary reliefs.

In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed.

8. Learned counsel Mrs. Raskar, in Criminal Application

(APL) No.11/2016 submitted that the applicants in the said

application are shown to be served as Assistant Teacher, Junior

Clerk and Peon respectively. They are the original accused

Nos.11 to 13. Except their consent letters, there is nothing on

record to show that they were serving in the said school as

Assistant Teacher, Junior Clerk and Peon and received any

monetary gain. In fact, they never received the consent letters.

The consent letters are prepared by somebody else. There is

absolutely no material to show that these letters are prepared by

the present applicants. During the investigation, their specimen

handwriting is also not obtained by the Investigating Agency. As

far as the other investigation is concerned, which shows the

involvement of the other co-accused. In view of that, the

application deserves to be allowed and FIR deserves to be

quashed against the present applicants.

9. In support of her contentions, she placed reliance on:

(i) State of Haryana and others Vs Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335,

70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt

(ii) Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641,

(iii) Rikhab Birani and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 823,

10. Learned counsel Mr. Gilda submitted that the entire

investigation papers nowhere discloses that it was the accused

who have forged the consent letters or the proposal to transfer

the school i.e. Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Vidyalaya. In fact, he

submitted that the documents on record shows that permission

was granted to start the said school at Dabha. Accordingly, it

was started and thereafter the proposal was forwarded to

transfer the said school from Dabha to Sonkhas, therefore the

allegations levelled against the present accused persons are

baseless and omnibus. The documents further shows that the

body of the Directors namely Ghanshyam Shamsundar, Gajanan

Budhe and others filed a change report before the learned

Assistant Charity Commissioner. The present applicants Mangala

Budhe and Laxman Jawake filed an intervention application for

seeking permission for participating in proceeding, however, the

same was rejected. He submitted that the allegation against the

present applicants that they have prepared the forged inspection

report as well as the forged consent letters but except the

allegations, there are no documents to establish the same.

70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt

11. In support of his contention he placed reliance on:

(i) Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited & others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690.

(ii) Suresh Lalchand Lulla and others Vs. Neela Sudhish Talpade and another reported in (1992) Mh.LJ. 1455.

(iii) Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & another reported (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1950.

12. Before entering into the merits of the present case, it is

necessary to see the broad principles which emerge from the

precedents on the subject i.e. quashing of the FIR, which is

summaries in a catena of decisions.

13. It is not in dispute that the power of the High Court in

quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of

its inherent jurisdiction is distinct. The inherent power is of wide

plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in

accord with the guidelines engrafted in such power that is to

secure the ends of justice, and to prevent abuse of the process

of any Court. The broad principles which emerge from the

precedents on the aforementioned subject, may be summarised

in the following propositions:

(1) Section 482 CrPC 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.

70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt

(2) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 CrPC. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-

compoundable.

(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.

(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.

(5) The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

(6) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element

70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt

of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

(7) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

(8) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

(9) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

(10) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (8) and (9) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.

14. In the light of the above broad principles, the facts of the

present case in the light of the investigation carried out by the

Investigating Agency required to be seen. It is alleged that the

Savitribai Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, District Washim is an

education society which runs the schools namely (a) Kalifnath

70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt

Maharaj Vidyalaya, Sawargaon, Taluka Mangrulpir, District

Washim, (b) Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Vidyalaya, Kothari, Taluka

Mangrulpir, District Washim and (c) Mahatma Jyotiba Phule

Vidyalaya, Sonkhas (Shahapur), Taluka Mangrulpir, District

Washim. The issue involved in the FIR is regarding forgery of the

documents to transfer of the Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Vidyalaya,

Dabha to Sonkhas (Shahpur) by transfer proposal dated

15.11.2013 which has been recognized by the State Government

by permission dated 27.01.2014. On perusal of the investigation

papers, it reveals that the allegation levelled against the present

applicants and the other co-accused are that initially, the body of

the Directors namely Ghanshyam Mahadevrao Shamsundar,

Gajanan Kalnaji Budhe, Panchafulabai Mahadevrao Thakare,

Mahadev Vitthalrao Raut, Sahebrao Vitthalrao Raut, Ramdas

Anandraoji Dongre, Ramrao Wamanrao Raut, Shridharrao

Abhiman Shamsundar and Shobha Vijayrao Kshirsagar filed a

change report before the Assistant Charity Commission, Washim.

The said change report was rejected by the Assistant Charity

Commission, Washim. Thereafter, one fake body was prepared

by showing names of Mangala Budhe as President, Deepak

Govindrao Kshirsagar as Vice President, Laxman Parasramji

Jawake as Secretary with other members. The said Mangala

Budhe and Mohan Jawake filed an application before the learned

Assistant Charity Commissioner, Washim for seeking permission

70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt

for participating in proceeding dated 29.04.2015. The said

request for participation in proceeding was rejected by observing

that they were never members of the said Society dated

01.07.2015. It is apparent from the said record that especially

the order of the learned Charity Commissioner that this Court

has directed to decide all the change reports of the said trust

which has filed through its President Sau Mangala Budhe within

time bound period.

15. The FIR came to be lodged on the basis of a report of

non-applicant No.2 Ramdas Anandrao Dongre on an allegation

that the present applicant Anagha in Criminal Application (APL)

No.755/2015 was serving as Headmistress and other applicants

were employees of the said Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Vidyalaya,

Dabha. The applicants in Criminal Application (APL)

No.768/2015 posed themselves as President, Vice President and

officer bearers of the said Society prepared a forged proposal for

transfer of the said school from Dabha to Mangrulpir. In fact,

the said school is not in existence. The resolutions which are

shown to be passed are also forged one. The consent letters

which are issued by the present applicants, who were in fact not

working in the said school, but shown to be working there and

given their consent letters to transfer the said school and thereby

cheated the Government. On perusal of the investigation

papers, it reveals that as per the allegations, Mangala Budhe has

70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt

posed herself as President, Deepk Kshirsagar posed himself as

Vice President and Laxman Parasram Jawake posed himself as

Secretary with other members. They have prepared one

proposal for transfer of the said school and the said proposal

bears the signature of the applicant in Criminal Application (APL)

No. 755/2015. The said proposal was forwarded along with the

consent letter of the present applicant. The allegation further

shows that the applicants Swapnil Kale, Sumeet Kadam and

Dattatray Kshirsagar never appointed as employees of the said

school. The applicant Anagha Badge was also never appointed

as Headmistress of the said school, thereafter also they have

given the consent letters to transfer the said school, which in fact

is not existence.

16. On perusal of the investigation papers, admittedly, it

reveals that in response to the advertisement dated 02.06.2009

in 'Dainik Sairan' applicant Angha Badge applied for the post of

Assistant Teacher. Accordingly, on 23.06.2009 she was

appointed by an appointment letter for the period of two years

i.e. from 26.06.2009 to 27.06.2011. Her services in Mahatma

Jyotiba Phule Vidyalaya, Dabha were only for two years. She has

given a joining letter on 26.06.2009 which was accepted by the

Secretary of the said Society. Thereafter, she was appointed in

Zilla Parishad High School at Mangrulpir. The experience

certificate given to her by the Headmaster of Zilla Parishad, High

70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt

School shows that she is served in the said Zilla Parishad High

School, Mangrulpir from 16.10.2012 to 30.04.2013. Thus, as far

as the investigation material collected, nowhere shows that after

27.06.2011 there was any connection between the applicant

Anagha Badge and the school Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Vidyalaya,

Dabha run through Savitribai Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal.

Similarly, the applicants in the other applications are shown to be

employees of the said school. However, the entire investigation

papers nowhere shows that at any point of time, they were

appointed in the said school and they have worked in the said

school. Except mentioning of their names in the transfer proposal

there is absolutely no record to show that the said consent

letters are issued by them.

17. During investigation, the Investigating Officer has

recorded the various statements of the witnesses including

statement of Dinesh Vinayak Tarole, who was serving as a

Deputy Education Officer at Washim Zilla Parishad. The

statement of Kishor Ghanshyam Shyamsundar recorded on

07.10.2015 also shows that the said school was never in

existence. He specifically stated that though the permission was

granted for starting the said school, but other school in the name

Late Gangaramji Kale was already in existence in the village

Dabha and therefore, they have not started the said school in

village Dabha though they have obtained the permissions. The

70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt

other statements of the witnesses shows that only one school is

available in village Dabha, which is of one Ananta Kale. No

school by name Mahatma Jyotiba Phule was in existence in the

said village. Admittedly, there is a proposal of transfer of the said

school. It is also undisputed that the applicant Anagha Badge

was not in service when the said proposal was forwarded for

transfer dated 15.11.2013. The other applicants were also not in

service. As none of the investigation papers shows that either

they were appointed or they have worked there, no attendance

worked there though there was no appointment in their names.

Thus, except their signatures on the consent letters, there is

absolutely no material to connect them with the alleged offence.

The allegations of preparation of the forged inspection report is

against the applicants Mangala Budhe and Laxman Jawake.

Thus, considering the entire investigation papers collected during

the investigation none of the documents shows that these

consent letters are issued by the present applicants. Thus, there

is no prima facie material to show that it was present applicants,

who have prepared the forged consent letters or false consent

letters.

18. In order to constitute the criminal breach of trust under

Section 406 of IPC -

70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt

(1) There must be entrustment with person for property or dominion over the property, and

2) The person entrusted: -

a) dishonestly misappropriated or converted property to his own use, or

b) dishonestly used or disposed of the property or willfully suffers any other person so to do in violation of:

(i) any direction of law prescribing the method in which the trust is discharged; or

(ii) legal contract touching the discharge of trust.

19. Similarly, to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC,

there has to be 1) deception of any person, either by making a

false or misleading representation or by other action or by

omission; 2) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to

deliver any property, or 3) the consent that any persons shall

retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person

to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit.

20. In both the aforesaid sections, mens rea i.e. intention to

defraud or the dishonest intention must be present, and in the

case of cheating it must be there from the very beginning or

inception.

21. On the plain reading of the FIR fails to spell out any of

the aforesaid ingredients noted above against the present

applicants. If it is a case of the complainant that offence of

criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 of IPC,

70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt

punishable under Section 406 of IPC, is committed by the

accused, then in the same breath it cannot be said that the

accused has also committed the offence of cheating as defined

and explained in Section 415 of the IPC, punishable under

Section 420 of the IPC.

22. Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the

judgment of Delhi Race Club (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex

Court has held in Para No.39 which reads as under:

"39. Every act of breach of trust may not result in a penal offence of criminal breach of trust unless there is evidence of manipulating act of fraudulent misappropriation. An act of breach of trust involves a civil wrong in respect of which the person may seek his remedy for damages in civil courts but, any breach of trust with a mens rea, gives rise to a criminal prosecution as well. It has been held in Hari Prasad Chamaria Vs.Bishun Kumar Surekha & Ors., reported in (1973) 2 SCC 823 as under:

"4. We have heard Mr. Maheshwari on behalf of the appellant and are of the opinion that no case has been made out against the respondents under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860. For the purpose of the present appeal, we would assume that the various allegations of fact which have been made in the complaint by the appellant are correct. Even after making that allowance, we find that the complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence on the part of the respondents under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860. There is nothing in the complaint to show that the respondent had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time the appellant parted with Rs. 35.000/-. There is also nothing to indicate that the respondents induced the appellant to pay them Rs. 35,000/- by deceiving him. It is further not the case of the appellant that a

70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt

representation was made by the respondents to him at or before the time he paid the money to them and that at the time the representation was made, the respondents knew the same to be false. The fact that the respondents subsequently did not abide by their commitment that they would show the appellant to be the proprietor of Drang Transport Corporation and would also render accounts to him in the month of December might create civil liability for them, but this fact would not be sufficient to fasten criminal liability on the respondents for the offence of cheating."

23. To put it in other words, the case of cheating and

dishonest intention starts with the very inception of the

transaction. But in the case of criminal breach of trust, a person

who comes into possession of the movable property and receives

it legally, but illegally retains it or converts it to his own use

against the terms of the contract, then the question is, in a case

like this, whether the retention is with dishonest intention or not,

whether the retention involves criminal breach of trust or only a

civil liability would depend upon the facts of each case.

24. Thus, there is a distinction between criminal breach of

trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary

at the time of making a false or misleading representation i.e.,

since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of

entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of

trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted to the property, and he

dishonestly misappropriated the same. Whereas, in case of

70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt

cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a

person by deceiving him to deliver any property. In such a

situation, both the offences cannot co-exist simultaneously.

25. This aspect is further considered by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Rikhab Birani referred by the learned

counsel for the applicants and by referring the catena of

decisions it is held that both the offences cannot co-exist

simultaneously.

26. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the

case as observed earlier that when the complainant has come

with the case that the applicants have the false consent letters.

The investigation papers itself shows that applicant Anagha

Badge never worked in the said school after 27.06.2011. There

is no material to show that applicants in Criminal Application

(APL) No.11/2016 were appointed there, they worked there and

they received any monetary gain. Though it is alleged by the

prosecution that Anagha Badge worked in both schools and

received monetary gain, but it is not substantiated by any

documentary evidence. As far as Mangala Budhe and Laxman

Jawake are concerned, the investigation papers shows their

involvement in preparation of proposal of transfer of school

which was not in existence and preparation of consent letter in

the name of applicants who were not working in the school is

70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt

apparent. The continuance of the above said proceedings

against the present applicants in Criminal Application (APL)

Nos.755/2015 and Criminal Application (APL) No.11/2016 in the

absence of any material to connect them with the alleged offence

would be an abuse of the process of law. Even accepting the

case as it is, in its entirety do not prima facie constitute any

offence against the those applicants as both the contentions of

the complainant that they have committed the criminal breach of

trust and also deceived cannot co-exist and therefore, if the

criminal proceedings are allowed to continue against the

applicants, the same will be abuse of process of law and result in

miscarriage of justice.

27. The prima facie case made out against the applicants

Mangala Budhe and Laxman Jawake in Criminal Application (APL)

No.768/2015.

28. The Investigating Officer has recorded the various

statements of the witnesses which shows that the said school

was never in existence. The statement further shows that the

permission was granted for starting Mahatma Phule Vidyalaya at

Dabha, but the other school was already in existence, therefore,

the said school was not started in village Dabha. No school by

name Mahatma Jyotiba Phule was in existence in the said village.

The present applicants Mangala Budhe and Laxman Jawake

70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt

prepared a proposal for transfer of the school when the school is

not in existence. They have also shown the applicants Swapnil

Kale, Sumeet Kadam and Dattatraya Kshirsagar as the

employees of the said school, when there was no appointment

order shows their intention since inception. The entire

investigation papers discloses their involvement in preparation of

the forged documents and therefore, the application in respect of

the applicants Mangala Budhe and Laxman Jawake deserves to

be rejected.

29. In the case of Achin Gupta vs The State of Haryana,

2024 SCC OnLine SC 759, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court

observed as under:

"19. It is now well settled that the power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only where such exercise is justified by the tests laid down in the Section itself. It is also well settled that Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. does not confer any new power on the High Court but only saves the inherent power, which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Criminal Procedure Code. There are three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

20. The investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers, whose powers in that field are unfettered, so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offence is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the

70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt

provisions under Chapter XII Cr.PC. While exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC. The court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. As noted above, the inherent jurisdiction under the section, although wide, yet should be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. The authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has the power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers, the court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that the initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto."

30. In the case of Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of

Uttarakhand & Ors., 2013(11) SCC 673, the Hon'ble Apex

Court in paragraph No.12 has observed as under:-

"12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or

70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt

not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court."

31. In the present case, the ingredients of cheating as

defined under Section 415 of IPC and criminal breach of trust

under Section 405 of IPC are not made out even accepting the

allegations in the complaint at their face value against the

applicants namely Swapnil Avinash Kale, Sumeet Ashok Kadam,

Dattatraya Jairam Kshirsagar. The facts and the circumstances

of the case further shows that the foundation fact that they were

connected with the said Society and the said school itself is not

established from the investigation papers and therefore, Criminal

Application (APL) Nos. 755/2015 and 11/2016 deserve to be

allowed. However, involvement of applicants Mangala Budhe and

Laxman Jawake reveals in preparing forged proposal, inspection

report and consent letters. Therefore, the prayer of applicants in

Criminal Application (APL) No.768/2015 is rejected.

70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt

32. For all above these reasons, the Criminal Application

(APL) Nos.755/2015 and 11/2016 deserve to be allowed and

hence, I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

(i) Criminal Application (APL) Nos. 755/2015, 11/2016 are allowed.

(ii) The FIR in connection with Crime No.246/2015 registered with Police Station Mangrulpir, District Washim for the offence punishable under Sections 466, 467, 468, 471, 473, 481, 474, 409, 420, 181 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceeding arising out of the same charge sheet bearing No.246/2015, are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of the present applicants in Criminal Application (APL) Nos.755/2015 and 11/2016.