Dismissed

Dr Kailas Laxman Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Aug 2017APPLN/2335/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad considered an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of charge-sheet in a forgery case. The court noted that the charge was already framed and the applicant had previously withdrawn an earlier application without seeking liberty to re-approach. The court rejected the application.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing charge-sheet rejected; trial court shall not be influenced by these observations.

Dr Kailas Laxman Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

2335.2012 Cri.Appln.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2335 OF 2016

¶5

Dr.Kailas Laxman Patil,
Age: 43 Years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Pimplesi, Tal. Dharangaon,
Dist.Jalgaon. APPLICANT

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, M.I.D.C. Police Station, Jalgaon Taluka & Dist. Jalgaon.

¶8

2.Arjun Latkan Patil
Age: 83 Years, Occu: Nil,
R/o. At/Post Masawad, Jalgaon
Tal. & Dist. Jalgaon. RESPONDENTS

¶9

...

¶10

Mr.S.P.Brahme, Advocate for the applicant
Ms.S.S.Raut, APP for Respondent – State.
Mr.D.B.Shinde,Advocateholdingfor
Mr.M.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent
no.2.

¶11

...

¶12

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &

¶13

 S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
Reserved on : 31.07.2017
 Pronounced on : 04.08.2017

¶14

2335.2012 Cri.Appln.odt

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):

¶17

1.This Application under Section 482
of the Criminal Procedure Code is filed for
quashing and setting aside charge-sheet dated
11th August, 2015 in R.C.C. No.538/2015, which
is pending before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jalgaon, to the extent of the
applicant,bearingCrimeNo.273/2012
registered with M.I.D.C. Police Station,
Jalgaon, for the offence punishable under
Sections 463, 464, 465, 468, 471, 420 r/w.34
of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

2.It is the case of the applicant that
the applicant is working as Deputy General

¶19

Manager in a Private Company at Jalgaon. He
was not interested in the administration of

¶20

the trust in question. He never actually
participated in the election, meetings and
submission of the change reports. Padmalay

¶21

2335.2012 Cri.Appln.odt

¶22

¶23

Shikshan Prasarak Mandal is a trust. It does
not have immovable properties. It does not
run any school or college. It has assets of
Rs.3000/- only. It was incorporated in 1992.
For 17 years, there was no election. The
founder body of the trust was comprising of
11 members. No elections were held
periodically. Many members were died.
Respondent no.2 was the Secretary.

¶24

3.It is further the case of the

¶25

applicant that respondent no.2 and accused
no.6 Gulabrao Patil took initiative in
holding the elections in the year 2008.

¶26

However, they are at the loggerhead.
Gulabrao Patil is the sitting M.L.A. The
allegations are against him and his brother
and son. No specific allegations were made

¶27

against the applicant. on 30.04.2008, the
elections were held and accused no.6 Gulabrao
Patil was elected as President. The applicant

¶28

was elected as member only. He is not the

¶29

¶30

2335.2012 Cri.Appln.odt

¶31

office bearers. Gulabrao Patil submitted
change report No.968/2012 along with
affidavits, consent letters and applications.
Change Report No.968/2012 was compromised in
Lok Adalat resultantly approving the change.
Appeal No.28/2012 was dismissed by the Joint
Charity Commissioner on 28th May, 2015. The
objectors have approached the higher Forum.

¶32

4.It is further the case of the

¶33

applicant that respondent no.2 lodged the
complaint alleging that the documents filed

¶34

along with change report were forged. The
signatures of the dead persons were made on
the documents. The affidavits were made by
impersonation.Theapplicantsecured

¶35

anticipatory bail from this Court. On 11th
August, 2015, the charge-sheet was filed and

¶36

R.C.C.No.438/2015 is registered against the
applicant and other five persons for the
offence punishable under Sections 473, 474,

¶37

2335.2012 Cri.Appln.odt

¶38

¶39

475, 468, 471, 420-E r/w.34 of the Indian
Penal Code.

¶40

5.Learned counsel appearing for the
applicant submits that there are general
allegations in the FIR. There is no any
specific role attributed to the applicant.
Upon perusal of the charge-sheet, and its
accompaniments, there is no any specific role
or allegations against the applicant. The
change report was placed in Lok Adalat.
There are no allegations and incriminating
material against him to proceed for the
offence punishable under Sections 463, 464,

¶41

465, 468, 471, 422-E r/w.34 of the Indian
Penal Code. The entire charge-sheet does not
spell any overt act against the applicant

¶42

except the general allegations that the
offence was committed by the applicant along
with other accused persons. For the said
absurdity and vagueness the applicant is not
liable to undergo the ordeal of trial. The

¶43

2335.2012 Cri.Appln.odt

¶44

¶45

entire charge-sheet is in respect of the commission of offence by accused no.6, who is the President and other accused persons. There is no specific role attributable to the applicant. The applicant is not the active member of the trust. He was not reporting trustee of change report No.968/2012. The documents filed along with the change report were not prepared and executed by the applicant. There is no prima facie evidence to connect the applicant to the offence of forgery.

¶46

6.The learned counsel appearing for
the applicant further submits that the
applicant is reputed persons and highly
educated. He is rendering services in a
Private Company and holds a responsible post.
The allegations against him are not plausible
at any stretch of imagination. The complaint
filed by respondent no.2 was not maintainable

¶47

2335.2012 Cri.Appln.odt

¶48

¶49

in view of allegations of perjury leveled in

¶50

the same. Respondent no.2 himself was responsible for convening the meeting. The complaint/FIR and charge-sheet as against the applicant are inherently improbable and smacks of mala fides . The charge-sheet cannot

¶51

be entertained in view of the civil
proceedings finalized by the Joint Charity
Commissioner and pending before Higher
Authorities. The present prosecution as an
abuse of process of law in the teeth of those
civil proceedings. In support of the
aforesaidcontention,learnedcounsel

¶52

appearing for the applicant placed reliance upon the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of GHCL Employees Stock Option

¶53

Trust & Ors. Vs. India Infoline Limited & Ors.¹ , and also the judgment of the Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad in the case of Rajeshwarrao s/o.Vishwanathrao Patil & Others

¶54

Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Others in 1 2013 [4] SCC 505

¶55

2335.2012 Cri.Appln.odt

¶56

¶57

Criminal Writ Petition No.507 of 2013, decided on 22^nd August, 2013 .

¶58

7.On the other hand, learned APP

¶59

appearing for the respondent–State invites
our attention to the investigation papers,

¶60

and also the charge-sheet, and the fact that
already charge is framed. He submits that the
applicant is named by the informant in the
FIR. Along with accused no.6 Gulabrao Patil,

¶61

he was also instrumental in forging the
signatures of the persons, whose names are
mentioned in the FIR namely, Maharu Kashinath
Beldar and Tukaram Mohan Patil, though Maharu

¶62

Kashinath Beldar is not alive; their
signatures have been forged. The accused
conspired with each other and committed the

¶63

alleged offences. He submits that the

¶64

allegations in the FIR gets support from the

¶65

evidence collected by the Investigating
Officer. It is submitted that the applicant

¶66

filed Criminal Application No.4066/2014

¶67

2335.2012 Cri.Appln.odt

¶68

¶69

[Kailas Laxman Patil Vs.The State of
Maharashtra and another] taking exception to
the FIR, however, said application was
withdrawn, and consequently dismissed by this
Court. Therefore, learned APP submits that
the application may be rejected.

¶70

8.We have considered the submissions
of the learned counsel appearing for the

¶71

applicant and the learned APP appearing for
the respondent-State. With their able

¶72

assistance, we have carefully perused the
allegations in the FIR, charge-sheet and it’s
accompaniment. It is not in dispute that the
charge is already framed by the trial Court.
It appears that charge-sheet is filed on 16th

¶73

June, 2016, and by this time the concerned
Court might have proceeded with the trial.

¶74

Upon careful perusal of the FIR, the name of

¶75

the applicant along with other accused is

¶76

mentioned. The allegations are serious in
nature inasmuch as though Maharu Kashinath

¶77

2335.2012 Cri.Appln.odt

¶78

¶79

Beldar was not alive, it appears that, on
20th April, 2008, the society issued agenda

¶80

and his forged signatures were shown on the
said agenda on 30th April, 2008 and general
body meeting was called, and fabricated and
forged proceedings were prepared by making
forged signatures of Maharu Kashinath Beldar

¶81

and Tukaram Mohan Patil. There is serious
allegation that on 29th June, 2012, in the
proceedings of Misc.Application No.968/2012
before the Civil Court at Jalgaon, in place
of informant some other persons appeared

¶82

posing that he is the informant, and

¶83

affidavit was prepared thereby making the
forged signature of the informant. It is
alleged in the FIR that the applicant and

¶84

other co-accused conspired with each other.

¶85

Upon careful perusal of the documents, and in
particular agenda of the meeting, the
applicant has signed the said acknowledgment
receipt of the agenda.

¶86

2335.2012 Cri.Appln.odt

¶87

¶88

9.In that view of the matter, in our

¶89

opinion, when the charge is framed and
applicant sought permission to withdraw the
Criminal Application No.4066/2014 [Kailas
Laxman Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra &
another], which was consequently allowed to
withdraw and dismissed as such. While

¶90

withdrawing the said application, the
applicant did not seek liberty to again

¶91

approach the Court. Be that as it may, we

¶92

have considered the contentions of the
applicant on merits, and in the light of the
charge-sheet and it’s accompaniments, and

¶93

allegations in the FIR, and the fact that
charge is already framed; we are not able to
persuade ourselves to entertain the prayer of

¶94

the applicant, hence application stands
rejected.

¶95

10.The observations made herein above

¶96

are prima facie in nature, and confined to the adjudication of the present application.

¶97

2335.2012 Cri.Appln.odt

¶98

¶99

The trial Court shall not get influence by
the observations made herein before during

¶100

the course of trial.

¶101

 [S.M.GAVHANE] [S.S.SHINDE]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶102

DDC

Dr Kailas Laxman Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Kailas Laxman Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devidas S/O. Baburao Gavai and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dilip S/O. Matsendrarao Kandharkar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gunwant @ Dhudaku Trymbak Patil Vs the State of Maharashstra

Umakant Vasantrao Kumbhare / Borikar (C-10321) Vs the State of Maharashtra

State of Maharashtra Vs Vishnu Ziparu Aagavane

Ramakant Chandrasen Jadhav and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra