Dismissed

Dr. Uttamrao Dhanaji Mahajan and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Sept 2013WP/386/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of criminal FIR. The Court found prima facie evidence of record manipulation by petitioners for monetary gain and held Section 482 Cr.P.C. inapplicable given the existence of investigative material. The petition was dismissed with rule discharged.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; rule discharged.

Dr. Uttamrao Dhanaji Mahajan and Ors… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp386.12

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 386 OF 2012

¶5

Dr. Uttamrao s/o Dhanaji Mahajan, Age 57 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Plot No.1, “Shivkrupa”, Dhule Road, Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon

¶6

Manoj s/o Uttamrao Mahajan, Age 27 years, Occ. Nil, R/o. Plot No.1, “Shivkrupa”, Dhule Road, Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon

¶7

Nitin s/o Sukhdeo Jadhav, Age 34 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Chalisgaon, Tq. and District Jalgaon ...Petitioners

¶8

versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra, through Superintendent of Police Jalgaon, District Jalgaon

¶10

The Police Inspector, Police Station, Chalisgaon District Jalgaon

¶11

Yogesh s/o Duryodhanrao Murkut, Age 27 years, Occ. Education, R/o. Laxmi Nagar, Indu Smruti, Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon ...Respondents

¶12

Mr. R.N. Dhorde, senior counsel i/b Mr. P.D. Bachate, advocate for the petitioners Mr. K.G. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. V.D. Sapkal, advocate for respondent No.3.

¶13

wp386.12

¶14

-2-

¶15

CORAM : K. U. CHANDIWAL AND A. I. S. CHEEMA, JJ. DATED : 6^th SEPTEMBER, 2013

¶16

JUDGMENT (PER K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) :-

¶17

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, heard finally.

¶18

The writ petitioners question prosecution vide crime No. 146 of 2012, registered at Chalisgaon police station at the instance of respondent No.3 Yogesh. Learned Senior Counsel extensively dealt with earlier history of controversies related to petitioners with a senior police Officer in Jalgaon district, which even led petitioners prosecuting said senior Police Officer with allegations of extortion, and even rejection of bail. This was, to impress us, that initiation of proceeding by respondent No.3 Yogesh is an arithmetical effort of the said senior police officer then operating in the area. Learned Senior Counsel says, Yogesh, in past also was instigated by said police officer and he initiated proceeding vide C.R. No. 45 of 2011, registered on 17.2.2011, wherein charge sheet is filed, which is pending.

¶19

We are not influenced, at this stage to accept that impugn F.I.R. is a result of influence by Police Officer on personal agenda.

¶20

The questioned F.I.R. vide C.R. No. 146 of 2012, precisely proceeds with allegations of false preparation of record concerning one Dr. Jadeja for

¶21

-3-

¶22

the period from 2005 onwards, inspite of the fact that said Dr. Jadeja was not in service with petitioners’ institution. Dr. Jadeja was shown as professor without any attendance with the institution. The record illustrates, inspite of efforts made by the investigator, Dr. Jadeja could not be located nor his address was provided. It is subsequently revealed that Dr. Jadeja expired on 14.5.2012. The second limb of allegations in the F.I.R. was that without any approval and arrangement, claim for scholarship of students belonging to scheduled caste/scheduled tribes was moved to Government and got approved, sanctioned, such funds are used by the petitioners (accused). Respondent Yogesh has further stated as to how the members in the committee of Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) coordinated themselves with the petitioners.

¶23

Learned Senior Counsel says, the F.I.R. giving reference to the date of 24/25.5.2011 of any conspiracy is blatantly false, as on that day, there was no approval to the institution.

¶24

Unfortunately, the facts are twisted. F.I.R. says that there was a report dated 24.5.2011 prepared by the members of CCIM; it has no nexus either to the permission or refusal.

¶25

It cannot be said, as learned Senior Counsel repeats that root cause of prosecution is senior police officer. Even the investigation, which was at preliminary stage, prima facie, reveals total slackness on the part of petitioners to co-operate investigator and even tendency to bounce back

¶26

wp386.12

¶27

-4-

¶28

the queries. The matter, at this stage, cannot be said to be manifestly attended with malice or absurdity. It also cannot be said that there is civil wrong or blend of civil wrong. Prima facie, record shows, the petitioners have manipulated records for monetary gain. This is even primarily noticed by inspecting team of CCIM. The attendance record, either of the students or of the staff is tailor made. This Court, at this juncture, should not further ponder and dwell upon the allegations. However, bulky record before this court and more lean to smoke-screen made by the petitioners. Considering the report of investigator and the available material, referred in the F.I.R., it cannot be expected that this Court should exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. We reiterate, there is prima facie material against the petitioners.

¶29

The writ petition dismissed. Rule discharged. The observations are prima facie in its nature, should not influence at the time of bail application, if moved, by the petitioners.

¶30

Dr. Uttamrao Dhanaji Mahajan and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Uttamrao Dhanaji Mahajan and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopaldas Narayandas Tapadiya and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Parveen Annasaheb Mohite Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Mohammad Khaja Mounuddin S/O Vaziruddin Vs Ahemad Mohiyuddin Alias Ahemad Hakam Vajiruddin and Another

Laxman Hiralal Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shivaji Ramrao Kale and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Gulab Vinayak Mukane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.