Allowed

Surendra Tukaram Mane v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Mar 2018WP/121/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three criminal writ petitions were filed to quash private complaint proceedings against three government officers alleged to have issued a false ration card. The High Court allowed the petitions, holding that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law and the chances of conviction bleak.

What did the court decide?

The three criminal writ petitions and the private complaint (Criminal Misc. Application No.08 of 2008) and police case (M. Case No.03 of 2008) were quashed and set aside regarding the petitioners.

Surendra Tukaram Mane Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

cwp121.08

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.121 OF 2008

¶6

Shri Surendra Tukaram Mane,
Age-50 years, Occu:Service,
R/o: Near Padmashali Dharmashala,
Tuljapur, Dist-Osmanabad.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1) The State of Maharashtra,

¶10

 Through Police Inspector,
 Tuljapur, Dist-Osmanabad,

¶11

2) Smita Balasaheb

¶12

 @ Suresh Kashinath Ghogare,
 Age-30 years, Occu:Household,

¶13

 R/o:Vishwas Nagar,

¶14

 Tuljapur, Dist-Osmanabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

 WITH

¶17

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.122 OF 2008

¶18

Shri Dinkar Sakharam Nagare,
Age-58 years, Occu:Pensioner,
R/o: Vidyanagar, Tambari Area,
Osmanabad, Dist-Osmanabad.

¶19

...PETITIONER

¶20

 VERSUS

¶21

cwp121.08

¶22

¶23

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through Police Inspector,
 Tuljapur, Dist-Osmanabad,
2) Smita Balasaheb
 @ Suresh Kashinath Ghogare,
 Age-30 years, Occu:Household,
 R/o:Vishwas Nagar,
 Tuljapur, Dist-Osmanabad.
...RESPONDENTS

¶24

 WITH
 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.123 OF 2008

¶25

Shri Dhondiba Hiraji Rathod,
Age-50 years, Occu:Service,
R/o:c/o- Tahsil Office, Bhum,
Osmanabad, Dist-Osmanabad.

¶26

...PETITIONER

¶27

 VERSUS

¶28

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through Police Inspector,
 Tuljapur, Dist-Osmanabad,

¶29

2) Smita Balasaheb
 @ Suresh Kashinath Ghogare,
 Age-30 years, Occu:Household,
 R/o:Vishwas Nagar,
 Tuljapur, Dist-Osmanabad.
...RESPONDENTS

¶30

 ...
 Mr.Mukul Kulkarni Advocate for Petitioners in
 all the Petitions.
 Ms.S.S. Raut, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1.
 Ms.Sneha Rathod Advocate for Respondent
 No.2 (Absent).

¶31

...

¶32

cwp121.08

¶33

¶34

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
 S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.

¶35

DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2018

¶36

 DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 1ST MARCH, 2018

¶37

JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:

¶38

1.All these three Petitions are filed

¶39

praying therein to quash and set aside the Private
Complaint bearing Criminal Misc. Application No.08

¶40

of 2008 filed before the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Tuljapur as well as M. Case No.03 of 2008
registered with Tuljapur Police Station against
the Petitioners. Therefore, all these Petitions
are heard together and being disposed of by this
common Judgment and Order.

¶41

2.The brief facts giving rise to these
Petitions, are as under:

¶42

A)The Petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition

¶43

cwp121.08

¶44

¶45

No.121 of 2008 is working as a Talathi in Tahsil

¶46

Office at Tuljapur since June, 1998. The
Petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.122 of
2008 was then working as a Circle Officer at
Tuljapur since 1996 till 10th December, 2001 and

¶47

he has retired from service from 31st January,
2008. The Petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition
No.123 of 2008 was then working as a Tahsildar at
Tuljapur since January 1998 till 2003.

¶48

B)It is submitted that the offence alleged
against the present Petitioners is that the

¶49

Government Officers have colluded with other
person and has issued ration card and birth
certificate falsely.

¶50

C)It is the case of present Respondent No.2

¶51

that she was wife of one Suresh @ Balasaheb
Ghogare. Said Suresh died of the heart attack at
Tuljapur. One Manju Gundu @ Shankar Vibhute, who
is impleaded as accused No.1 in the private

¶52

cwp121.08

¶53

¶54

complaint, started using the name of late husband
of Respondent No.2. According to Respondent No.2,
accused No.1 Manju is married to one Shankar
Vibhute in the year 1987 and from the said wedlock
accused No.1 Manju is having two daughters and one
son. It is alleged by Respondent No.2 that said
accused No.1 Manju had obtained a false birth
certificate of her daughter on 2nd August, 2001
wherein the name of father is shown as Suresh
Ghogare. It is further allegation of Respondent
No.2 that accused No.1 Manju had also obtained a
bogus Ration Card bearing No.0066214 which was
issued on 23rd August, 2001. In the said private
complaint Respondent No.2 had further alleged that
she is expecting some compensation from the Land
Acquisition Authorities which is payable for the
land of Respondent No.2 which is acquired, however
accused No.1 Manju is creating false documents in
order to siphon of the said amount. The private
complaint came to be filed before the learned
Magistrate on 5th January, 2008, wherein accused

¶55

cwp121.08

¶56

¶57

No.1 is Manju Gundu @ Shankar Vibhute and the
present Petitioners are accused Nos.2, 3 and 4.

¶58

D)It is submitted that private complaint

¶59

was presented by Respondent No.2 before the
Judicial Magistrate First Class at Tuljapur on 5th
January, 2008. The Magistrate issued direction to
register the said complaint as Criminal Misc.
Application No.8 of 2008. The Magistrate on the
same day i.e. 5th January, 2008 had directed the
police station to register the complaint and to
submit the report under Section 156(3) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.

¶60

E)As per the order issued by the

¶61

Magistrate, the police authorities have registered
crime as M. Case No.3 of 2008 under Sections 468,
464, 465, 463, 420 read with 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.

¶62

F)

¶63

It is submitted that accused No.1 Manju

¶64

cwp121.08

¶65

¶66

had made an application for Ration Card to the
concerned authorities in the year 2001. The
application was supported by the Birth Certificate
issued by the Chief Officer of Tuljapur Municipal
Council and it was also certified by the
Councillor from the concerned Ward. Accordingly
spot inquiry was made, including the photographs
of accused No.1 and her husband Suresh Ghogare
were verified. Thus, after following the complete

¶67

procedure it appears that the Ration Card was
allotted to accused No.1 on 23rd August, 2001. It
is made clear on the Ration Card itself that the

¶68

said Card can not be used as evidence as the
purpose of the said Card is for allotment of
commodities only.

¶69

G)It is submitted that birth certificate

¶70

dated 2nd August, 2001, is issued under the
signature of the Chief Officer of the Municipal
Council, Tuljapur. The Chief Officer is not
impleaded as an accused person in the present

¶71

cwp121.08

¶72

¶73

proceedings and only those officers who, in
discharge of their official duty had acted upon
the said birth certificate along with the other
evidence, are impleaded as accused persons,
without any reason whatsoever. Hence these Writ
Petitions are filed.

¶74

3.Learned counsel appearing for the

¶75

Petitioners, referring to the grounds taken in the
Petitions, submits that even if the entire
allegations in the private complaint are read as
it is, the alleged offences are not disclosed. All

¶76

the Petitioners have performed their official
duties and no offence is committed by them. It is
submitted that, it is highly improbable to accept

¶77

that for getting the amount of compensation for
land acquisition in the year 2008, the ration card

¶78

and birth certificate were issued in the year
2001. It is submitted that continuation of the

¶79

proceedings would be abuse of process of law and
therefore it is prayed that the proceedings of

¶80

cwp121.08

¶81

¶82

Criminal Misc Application No.8 of 2008 pending
before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tuljapur
and M. Case No.3 of 2008 registered with Tuljapur
police station may be quashed and set aside.

¶83

4.On the other hand, learned A.P.P.

¶84

appearing for the State has submitted that all
these Petitioners were Government servants and in
collusion with accused No.1 Manju, all the
Petitioners have issued bogus ration card in the
name of Manju Suresh Ghogare though name of her
husband is Shankar Vibhute. All the Petitioners

¶85

have prepared false documents and without
following the procedure, bogus ration card was
issued to accused No.1. Relying upon the
allegations in the private complaint, learned
A.P.P. submits that there is sufficient material
collected by the Investigating Officer which would
show the involvement of the Petitioners and
therefore the Petitions may be rejected.

¶86

cwp121.08

¶87

¶88

5.The counsel appearing for Respondent

¶89

No.2, though called out, was not present at the
time of hearing of the Petitions.

¶90

6.We have given careful consideration to
the submissions of learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioners and learned A.P.P. appearing for
the State. With their able assistance, we have
perused the grounds taken in the Petition,
annexures thereto, allegations in the private
complaint, its accompaniments and original police
papers which were made available by the learned
A.P.P.

¶91

7.Upon careful perusal of the allegations
in the private complaint, the complainant Smita
Suresh Ghogare has alleged that she is wife of
late Suresh Kashinath Ghogare. Accused No.1 -
Manju Gundu @ Shankar Vibhute is not at all
concerned with husband of the complainant. Accused
No.1 Manju is already married with Gundu @ Shankar

¶92

cwp121.08

¶93

¶94

Vibhute and out of the said wedlock she had two
daughters and one son. It is alleged by the
complainant that when accused No.1 Manju came to
know that husband of the complainant expired, in
order to grab the immovable and movable property
standing in the name of deceased husband of the
complainant, accused No.1 Manju started to create
false documents. Along with the other allegations,
it is alleged that accused No.1 Manju submitted

¶95

false documents before Petitioner No.1 for
obtaining ration card and it is alleged that
Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 helped Petitioner No.1 for
issuing false ration card in the name of accused
No.1 Manju.

¶96

8.Admittedly, accused No.1 Manju is not

¶97

before us. The explanation offered by the
Petitioners is that accused No.1 Manju had made an
application for Ration Card to the concerned
authorities in the year 2001. The said application
was supported by the Birth Certificate issued by

¶98

cwp121.08

¶99

¶100

the Chief Officer of Tuljapur Municipal Councillor

¶101

and it was also certified by the Councillor from
the concerned ward. It is further contended on
behalf of the Petitioner that, accordingly spot
inquiry was made, photographs of accused No.1 and
her husband were verified and after following the
complete procedure the Ration Card was issued to
accused No.1. It appears that the Petitioners have
acted in their official capacity and after
verifying the documents produced by accused No.1,
which were issued by the competent authority like
Chief Officer of Municipal Council, Tuljapur,
issued ration card in favour of accused No.1
Manju. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
Petitioners have committed any offence.

¶102

9.We find considerable force in the

¶103

argument advanced by learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioners that the Chief Officer of the

¶104

Municipal Council, Tuljapur, who issued the birth
certificate, on the basis of which Petitioners

¶105

cwp121.08

¶106

¶107

issued ration card, is not impleaded as accused in
the complaint and the Petitioners who are the
Government employees, who in discharge of their
duty had acted upon the said birth certificate are
impleaded as accused.

¶108

10.The only allegation against the
Petitioners is that relying upon false documents,
they have issued ration card in favour of accused
No.1 Manju. As observed earlier, after satisfying
themselves that requisite documents were placed on
record in support of request of issuance of ration

¶109

card, the Petitioners, in discharge of their
official duties, issued ration card in favour of
accused No.1 Manju. Therefore no offence can be
attributed to the Petitioners.

¶110

11.It is pertinent to note that complaint

¶111

was filed long back i.e. in the year 2008, making

¶112

general allegations against all the Petitioners
that Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 in collusion with each

¶113

cwp121.08

¶114

¶115

other, relying upon false documents, issued ration
card to accused No.1. The said allegations appears
to be ill-founded. In that view of the matter, in
our considered view, continuation of further
proceedings against the Petitioners based upon
private complaint and further investigation of the
offence registered with Tuljapur police station,
would be an abuse of process of law, the chances
of conviction would be bleak and the same would be

¶116

an exercise in futility. Hence, we pass following
order:

¶117

O R D E R

¶118

I) Criminal Writ Petition Nos.121 of
2008, 122 of 2008 and 123 of 2008 are
allowed.

¶119

II) The Private Complaint bearing
Criminal Misc. Application No.08 of 2008
filed before the Judicial Magistrate

¶120

cwp121.08

¶121

¶122

First Class, Tuljapur as well as the

¶123

M. Case No.03 of 2008 registered with

¶124

Tuljapur Police Station, are quashed and
set aside, to the extent of present
Petitioners only.

¶125

III) Rule made absolute in above terms.

¶126

All the Writ Petitions are disposed of,
accordingly.

¶127

IV) It is made clear that the other co-

¶128

accused will not be entitled to derive

¶129

any benefit from this order.

¶130

[S.M. GAVHANE, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶131

asb/FEB18

Surendra Tukaram Mane v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Tukaram Mane 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Miss Vaishali Sitaram Pradhan Vs the State of Mah Thru Secretary Mumbai and Ors.

Dr. Abhijeet Pandharinath Wadekar and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Maharashtra Mahila Prashikshan Bal Sadan, Balak Ashram, Balgruha Swayansevi Sanstha Chalak Sangh Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dinkar Sakharam Nagare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dhondiram Hiraji Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vinayak Sadashiv Jadhav Vs State of Maha