Ravindra Shankar Kamble. v. 1. the State of Maharashtra.

Bombay HC1 Oct 2016WP/658/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected three criminal writ petitions for quashing an FIR alleging a financial scam involving sanctioned loans to fictitious beneficiaries. Court held investigation is essential as criminal conspiracy is involved and material contradicts no offence disclosures arguments.

What did the court decide?

Petitions for quashing of FIR rejected; Rule discharged.

What the court decided

AI extract

¶1

658.16WP+

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.658 OF 2016

¶5

Ravindra S/o Shankar Kamble
Age : 56 years, Occ : Service,
R/o K-102, Vijay Park,
Meera Road, Mumbai. …PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra

¶8

2. Bhimrao S/o Lahuji Naik
Age : Major, Occ : Service working as
District manager, Vasantrao Naik
Vimukta Jati and Nomadic Tribe

¶9

Development Corporation, Ahmednagar.

¶10

… RESPONDENTS
WITH

¶11

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.885 OF 2016

¶12

Pralhad Kacharuji Gajbhiye
Age : 61 years, Occ : Retired,
R/o D-103, Rashi Apartent,
Krushna Township, Gokul Angan,
Vasai, West, Dist. Palghar.

Ravindra Shankar Kamble. Vs 1. the State of Maharashtra. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2016)

¶27

Advocates for Petitioners : Mr. T.M. Venjane
& Mr.V.D. Gunale holding for Mr.S.G. Rudrawar
A.P.P. for Respondent/State : Mr.D.R. Kale
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Ms. Pradyna S.
Talekar holding for Talekar and Associates

¶36

2.Since all three Petitions are filed
praying therein for quashing and setting the
First Information Report/Complaint bearing
C.R. No.I-137/2016 registered with Kotwali
Police Station, Ahmednagar on 21st April, 2016
for the offences punishable under Sections
420, 467, 468, 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
the same are being heard and disposed of by
this common judgment.

¶37

3.The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner in Writ Petition No.658 of
2016 submits that petitioner – Ravindra
Shankar Kamble is no way concern with the
allegations in the First Information Report.
He submits that the petitioner was appointed
as District Manager in Vasantrao Naik Vimukta
Jatis&NomadicTribesDevelopment
corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as
“the said Corporation”) at Nagpur on 23rd
June, 1986. By order dated 15th February,

¶41

amount. It is submitted that even if the
allegations in the F.I.R. are read in its
entirety and taken at its face value, no
offence is disclosed against petitioner –
Ravindra. He submits that the entire control
of sanctioning and disbursing the loan amount
is of District Manager. Mr. Nagare was

¶54

Manager or the Managing Director of the said
Corporation at the relevant time. It is the
routine procedure that the Project Officer,
Administrative Officer and Finance Officer
would scrutinize the requirement of each
districts and put the proposal before the
Managing Director. The Managing Director
after verifying the loan proposals used to
issue Demand Drafts to the concerned District
Managers of various districts and the
District Managers, after verifying all the
documents used to disburse the loan amount in
favour of the beneficiaries.

¶56

respondent No.2 has no locus to file the
complaint, since he is Junior Officer of the
complainant. The learned counsel invites our
attention to the pleadings in the Petitions,
grounds taken therein, the annexures thereto
and submits that the Petitions deserve to be
allowed.

¶59

6.The learned counsel appearing for
petitioner – Pralhad Kacharuji Gajbhiye in
Criminal Writ Petition no. 885 of 2016
submits that the petitioner was appointed in
the year 1986 in the said Corporation. The
procedure is laid down for considering the
loan proposals, processing the same and
actual disbursement of the amount in favour
of the borrowers/beneficiaries. He invites

¶61

stood retired from the employment of the said
Corporation, and thereafter the F.I.R. is
registered against him and others. Even if
the entire allegations in the F.I.R. are
taken as it is and read in its entirety, no

¶79

Officer of the said Corporation alleging that
the petitioner- Ravindra was working as
General Manager at Pune and the certain
duties were caste upon him as per the bye-
laws of the Corporation. It is revealed that
50 proposals in respect of granting and
sanctioning the loan by the Corporation found
false, bogus and fabricated. Therefore, an
inquiry was initiated by the Corporation, and
one of the retired District Judge has
conducted the said inquiry, wherein he came
to the conclusion that the petitioner –
Ravindra along with other co-accused have

¶81

During the inquiry by the Officer of
Corporation certain statements were recorded,
wherein those officers have stated that the
present petitioner has forced them to
sanction the proposal and to assist one of

¶85

Mr.Ganesh Sanap, to whom cheques have been
handed over as per the directions of
petitioner – Ravindra. It is submitted that
during the course of investigation, the
Investigating Officer has collected the
proposals from the Corporation and verified,

¶94

amount. It was the duty of petitioner –
Ravindra to verify and properly check all
those loan proposals and sent it to the
Managing Director. The petitioner was
superior officer of the District Officer and
it is his duty to verify and properly check
all the proposals submitted by the District

¶99

that petitioner – Ravindra has told to
District Manager to hand over cheques to
Ganesh Sanap, who is not employee/officer of
the Corporation. The learned A.P.P. further
submits that upon reading allegations in the

¶103

prosecution agency, prima facie it is clear
that all the petitioners have conspired with
each other and have indulged in commission of
offences. Therefore, the learned A.P.P.
relying upon the investigation papers and
replies filed by the Officers submits that
the Petitions for quashing the F.I.R. may not
be entertained.

¶107

the time of alleged misappropriation of
Rs.2,50,00,000/- in the name of 50 fictitious
beneficiaries. It was his duty to scrutinize
and sanction the proposal of the loan to the
persons belonging to Vimukta Jati and Nomadic

¶110

Tribes, which is evident from the letter
issued by the Managing Director of the
Corporation at Mumbai wherein the specific
roles and functions of the General manager
are given. The learned counsel invites our
attention to the document showing the role
and functions of the General Manager. She
submits that the present petitioner is very
much involved in the commission of the
alleged misappropriation of Rs.2,50,00,000/-
in the name of bogus beneficiaries and on the
same count he came to be suspended vide
orders dated 18th May, 2015 and 27th October,
2015 issued by the Managing Director of the
Corporation at Mumbai.

¶115

informed that they had disclosed everything,
that had transpired during the relevant
period, including the links between Shri A.V.
Nagare and Shri Ravindra Kamble and also the
roles played by Ravindra Kamble in the entire

¶125

respective petitioners, the learned A.P.P.
appearing for the Respondent/State and the
learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No.2. With their able assistance, we have
perused the pleadings in the Petitions,
grounds taken therein, annexures thereto, the
investigation papers which were made
available for perusal of this Court by the
learned A.P.P. and also the enquiry report by
the Officer of the Corporation.

¶126

11.Upon careful perusal of the said
Enquiry Report, it is revealed by the
Corporation that during the period from 15th
September, 2012 to 10th January, 2013 in
Ahmednagar district, the loan amount of
Rs.2,50,00,000/- is shown to have been
disbursed to 50 fictitious beneficiaries and
the same was credited to the Savings account
in Beed District Co-operative Bank of one co-
accused namely Yogesh Sanap. The Government

¶143

12.Upon reading the allegations in the
F.I.R., it contains averment that the accused
persons had entrusted 50 cheques to the
co-accused Ganesh Sanap, who is not even
employee of the Corporation and said Ganesh,
in turn, had handed over the same to his
brother Yogesh Sanap, which ultimately
resulted in depositing said amount in the
account of Yogesh Sanap. Upon reading the
allegations in the F.I.R., in its entirety
there are allegations which would attract

¶160

district, to deal with the beneficiaries
which are in Ahmednagar district, the office
of the Corporation is also situated at
Ahmednagar. Instead of disbursing the amount
directly to the beneficiaries, the amount is
deposited in the name of Mr. Sanap at Beed.

¶174

5. ... The entire community is
aggrieved if the economic offenders
who ruin the economy of the State are
not brought to book. A murder may be
committed in the heat of moment upon
passions being aroused. An economic
offence is committed with cool
calculation and deliberate design with
an eyue on personal profit regardless
of the consequence to the community. A
disregard for the interest of the
community can be manifested only at
the cost of forfeiting the trust and
faith of the community in the system
to administer justice in an even-
handed manner without fear of
criticism from the quarters which view
white-collar crimes with an permissive
eye unmindful of the damage done to
the national economy and national
interest.”

¶191

consideration. Therefore, all the Criminal
Writ Petitions stand rejected. Rule in
respective Petitions stand discharged. We
make it clear that observations made
hereinbefore are prima facie in nature and
trial Court shall not get influenced by said
observations during the course of the trial
and while rendering the decision.

Ravindra Shankar Kamble. v. 1. the State of Maharashtra.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra S/O Khakhani Adhikari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mangala Sharad Mutha and Others Vs the Recovery Officer -1 and Others

Priti W/O Vijay Ganraj Vs the State of Maaharashtra

Taufik Khan Shahwali Khan Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ravindra Shankar Kamble. v. 1. the State of Maharashtra.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra S/O Khakhani Adhikari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mangala Sharad Mutha and Others Vs the Recovery Officer -1 and Others

Priti W/O Vijay Ganraj Vs the State of Maaharashtra

Taufik Khan Shahwali Khan Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

A compact analysis

Coram

Bapu S/O Santosh Rajput (Patil) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balaji S/O Ganpati Chame Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others