Criminal Application filed by a former Naib Tahsildar seeking quashing of FIR alleging preparation of forged ration documents. Court examined tenure and evidence to reject quashing prayer.
Prayer to quash the FIR stands rejected. Application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
4097.2016Cri.Appln..odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4097 OF 2016
Rajesh s/o. Uttamrao Landge,
Age: 37 Years, Occ. Service,
R/o.Tulsiram Nagar, Malegaon Road,
Taroda [Kh.], Tq. & Dist. Nanded APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra Through Kalamnuri Police Station
2. Vijay Vitthalrao Thorat, R/o. Mauje Gadala, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli. RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.D.M.Shinde, Advocate for the applicant
Mr.S.R.YadavLonikar,APPforthe
Respondent/State
Mrs. Monika R. Dahat, Advocate for respondent
no.2.
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
K.K.SONAWANE,JJ.
Reserved on : 07.12.2016
Pronounced on : 19.12.2016
ORDER: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):
1.Heard the learned counsel appearing
for the applicant. He submits that even if
the allegations in the FIR are taken at its
4097.2016Cri.Appln..odt
2
face value and read in its entirety, the
ingredients of the alleged offences have not
been attracted. He further submits that from
the year 2008 till 15th September, 2012, he
was not incharge of the post of Naib
Tahsildar [Supply]. He submits that it is
only on 15th September, 2012 he received the
charge of the post of Naib Tahsildar
[Supply]. Therefore, he submits that since
the alleged allegation of preparing forged
documents, the involvement of the applicant
from the period of 2008 is completely ruled
out.
2.He further submits that during his
period when he was working as Naib Tahsildar
[Supply], he had supplied goods to the
accused no.1 as per card registered i.e. for
168 ration cards consisting 559 people for
the period of December 2012 to October 2013
and thereafter, he supplied the goods for 159
ration cards as per the list of card holder.
4097.2016Cri.Appln..odt
3
It is submitted that in stead of making the
then Naib Tahsildar [Supply] as an accused,
the present applicant is made as an accused
only in order to harass the applicant. It is
submitted that after 2002 the ration goods
were distributed based on ration cards i.e.
35 kg per card and not on the basis of number
of members of the card. Therefore, the
alleged misappropriation itself has no
substance. It is submitted that as per the
averments in the complaint, the role is
attributed to the accused nos. 2 and 4 that
the accused no.2 prepared bogus list of
persons and accused no.4 sanctioned the same,
but no name of present applicant shown as he
was not holding charge for the alleged period
and the role is attributed to the other
accused persons.
allocation of goods to the ration shop holder
is purely in the domain of Tahsildar and he
4097.2016Cri.Appln..odt
4
can only sanction quota as per stock in
Government warehouse and the applicant is no
way concern with the alleged offences. The
applicant was one of the Enquiry Officers,
who sent the report against the ration shop
holder, and therefore, the shop holders
license was cancelled. If applicant had any
role in the alleged illegal activities, then
he would not have filed report against
ration shop holder. Even the enquiry report
also shows that the distribution of goods was
for only 168 ration cards and not for 1009
cards as per the allegation of the
complainant. He further invites our attention
to the averments in the application, grounds
taken therein and annexures thereto and
submits that the alleged offences are not
disclosed against the applicant, and
therefore, the FIR may be quashed.
4.Pursuant to the notices issued to
the respondents, one Shri Kundakumar Bapurao
4097.2016Cri.Appln..odt
5
Waghmare, working as Police Inspector, Police
Station Kalamnuri has filed affidavit-in-
reply. It is stated in the said affidavit-in-
reply that during the investigation, it
revealed that the applicant was serving as
Incharge Tahsildar at Aundha on 03.09.2013 to
25.10.2013 and as a Naib Tahsildar from
15.09.2012 to 18.07.2014. It is stated that
the enquiry was held by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate and in the said report it is very
clear that there was misappropriation of
Government money by distributing grain and
kerosene to the undeserving persons.
5.It appears from the perusal of the
investigation papers that, during the
investigation it is transpired that various
ration cards were prepared in the name of
minors, dead persons, and after enquiry it is
found that some persons though members of the
joint family, separate ration cards were
issued in the name of husband and wife. Some
4097.2016Cri.Appln..odt
6
ration cards were prepared in the name of
students and also in the name of persons who
were not residing in the said village since
last 14-15 years. It appears from perusal of
the copies of documents collected during
investigation that the applicant has made
signatures acting as Tahsildar, Aundha
Nagnath on the said documents.
6.We have carefully gone through the
report and also investigation papers, the
applicant has served as Naib Tahsildar for
the period from 15th September, 2012 to 22nd
July, 2014 at Aundha Nagnath. It is also
mentioned that for considerable period he was
holding additional charge of the post of
Tahsildar. If the allegations in the FIR /
complaint are perused carefully, the
ingredients of the alleged offences have been
disclosed. Upon careful perusal of the
allegations in the FIR, it appears that, the
allegations relate to the period 2008 to
4097.2016Cri.Appln..odt
7
2014. We do not wish to enter into the
discussion on merits in respect of the
material/documentscollectedbythe
Investigation Officer during the course of
investigation. It is also not desirable to
enter into the exercise of appreciation of
documents and to find out the evidenciary
value of the material collected by the
Investigation Officer or the defences raised
bytheapplicantwhileexercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code.
7.In that view of the matter, the
prayer of the applicant to quash the FIR
standsrejected.Consequently,the
application stands rejected.
8.However, we make it clear that the
observations made herein before are prima facie in nature and confined to the
adjudication of the present application. The
4097.2016Cri.Appln..odt
8
order passed today may not be construed as an
impediment to the applicant to avail
appropriate remedy as available in law in the
event of filing of charge-sheet by the
Investigation Officer.
Sd/Sd/- [K.K.SONAWANE] [S.S.SHINDE] JUDGE JUDGE
DDC
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR disclosing allegations against the applicant during his tenure as Naib Tahsildar warrants quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajesh s/o. Uttamrao Landge
The State of Maharashtra Through Kalamnuri Police Station
Vijay Vitthalrao Thorat
S.S. Shinde
K.K. Sonawane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court