Allowed

Ramesh S/O. Gorakh Chakranarayan and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC19 Nov 2019WP/1205/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, school employees, filed writ petitions alleging the school management cheated them by collecting lakhs of rupees for permanent appointments that were never issued. The High Court held that separate crimes exist for each individual and directed the police to register separate criminal cases against the management rather than clubbing them under Section 219 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions allowed directing police to register separate criminal cases on basis of individual reports.

Ramesh S/O. Gorakh Chakranarayan and Others Vs the State… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1205 OF 2019

¶3

1. Ramesh s/o Gorakh Chakranarayan, Age : 38 years, occu. Service, R/o Near Dnyaneshwar Temple, Newasa, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶4

2. Dhananjay s/o babulal Shinde, Age : 39 years, occu. Service, R/o Warulacha Marure, Nalegaon, Tq. & District Ahmednagar

¶5

3. Vijay s/o Bhimrao Gadekar, Age : 40 years, Occu. Service, R/o Sainik nagar, Post Nimbodi, Tq. & District Ahmednagar

¶6

4. Machhindra s/o Vikram Wandekar, Age : 30 years, Occu. Service, R/o Mohoj Khu., Tq. Pathardi, District Ahmednagar

¶7

5. Nandu s/o Govardhan Kotkar, Age : 43 years, Occu. Service, R/o Nimblak, Tq. Nagar, District Ahmednagar

¶8

6. Swapnil s/o Karbhari Dhage, Age : 26 years, Occu. Service, R/o Padali, Tq. Pathardi, District ahmednagar

¶9

7. Shrikant s/o Bandu Jadhav, Age : 24 years, Occu. Service, R/o Somthane Khu., Tq. Pathardi, District Ahmednagar

¶10

8. Amol s/o Dinkar Wandekar, Age : 32 years, Occu. Service, R/o Mohoj Khu., Tq. Pathardi, District Ahmednagar

¶11

criwp1205-1497-2019

¶12

¶13

9. Dipak s/o Bapusaheb Bhavar, Age : 24 years, occu. Service, R/o Padali, Tq. Pathardi, District Ahmednagar

¶14

10. Shrikant s/o Bhagwan Kachare, Age : 30 years, occu. Service, R/o padali, Tq. Pathardi, District ahmednagar

¶15

11. Hareshwar s/o Sarangdhar Salve, Age : 35 years, occu. Service, R/o Khandgaon, Tq. Pathardi, District Ahmednagar

¶16

12. Rajshree Suryakant Kadave, Age : 33 years, occu. Service, R/o Khandgaon, Tq. Pathardi, District Ahmednagar

¶17

13. Pradip s/o maruti Shinde, Age : 32 years, occu. Service, R/o Khatgaon Takali, Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶18

14. Dnyaneshwar Sakharam Thange, Age : 32 years, Occu. Service, R/o Tikhol, Taluka Parner, District Ahmednagar

¶19

15. Dhananjay s/o Vishwasrao Wandekar, Age : 29 years, occu. Service, R/o Wagholi, Tq. Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar PETITIONERS

¶20

VERSUS

¶21

1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶22

2. The Commissioner, Social Welfare Commissionerate, Maharashtra State, Pune

¶23

3 criwp1205-1497-2019

¶24

3. The Regional Dy. Commissioner, Social Welfare, Nashik

¶25

4. The District Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶26

5. The Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare, Ahmednagar

¶27

6. The Social Welfare Officer, Ahmednagar

¶28

7. The Pathardi Police Station, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar through its Police Inspector

¶29

8. The Bhingar Police Station, Tq. Nagar, Dist. Ahmednagar, through its Police Inspector

¶30

9. Sadguru Rohidasji S.C. Central Primary/Secondary School, Khandgaon, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar, through its Headmaster

¶31

10. Sadguru Rohidasji S.C. Central Primary/Secondary School, Vadarwadi Bhingar, Tq. Nagar, Dist. Ahmednagar through its Headmaster

¶32

11. Shri Subhash s/o Bansi Salve, Age : Major, occu. President of Sadguru Rohidasji Bahuuddeshya Gramin Vikas Pratishthan, Ahmednagar, R/o Vijaynagar, Bhingar, Tq. Nagar, District Ahmednagar

¶33

12. Mrs. Mangal Anil Shinde, Age : Major Occu. Vice President of Sadguru Rohidasji Bahuuddeshya Gramin Vikas Pratishthan, Ahmednagar, R/o Indiranagar, Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar

¶34

criwp1205-1497-2019

¶35

¶36

13. Shri Anil s/o Tulshidas Shinde, Age : Major, Occu. Secretary of Sadguru Rohidasji Bahuuddeshya Gramin Vikas Pratishthan, Ahmednagar, R/o Indiranagar, Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar

¶37

14. Shri Sanjay s/o bansi Salve, Age : Major, Occu. Trustee of Sadguru Rohidasji Bahuuddeshya Gramin Vikas Pratishthan, Ahmednagar, R/o Vijaynagar, Bhingar, Tq. Nagar, District Ahmednagar

¶38

15. Mrs. Anita Subhash Salve, Age : Major, Occu. Treasurer of Sadguru Rohidasji Bahuuddeshya Gramin Vikas Pratishthan, Ahmednagar, R/o Vijaynagar, Bhingar, Tq. Nagar, District Ahmednagar

¶39

16. Shri Raju s/o Bansi Salve, Age : Major, Occu. Trustee of Sadguru Rohidasji Bahuuddeshya Gramin Vikas Pratishthan, Ahmednagar, R/o Alamgeer Road, Bhingar, Tq. Nagar, District Ahmednagar

¶40

17. Mrs. Rekha Sanjay Salve, Age : Major, occu. Trustee of Sadguru Rohidasji Bahuuddeshya Gramin Vikas Pratishthan, Ahmednagar, R/o Vijaynagar, Bhingar,

¶41

Tq. Nagar, District AhmednagarRESPONDENTS

¶42

AND

¶43

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1497 OF 2019

¶44

1. Ramakant s/o Uttam Aghav, Age : 34 years, Occu. Service, R/o Aghav Wasti, Rahuri,

¶45

Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶46

criwp1205-1497-2019

¶47

¶48

2. Dipak s/o Chandrabhan Gayake, Age : 38 years, Occu. Service, R/o Rahuri Railway Station, Gavthan, Rahuri, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar

¶49

3. Champalal s/o Ramlal Karware, Age : Major, occu. Service, R/o Near Ganpati Karkhana, Shivaji Nagar, Kalyan Road, Tq. and District Ahmednagar

¶50

4. Sachin s/o Ravsaheb Bhise, Age : Major, Occu. Service, R/o Kamat Shingave, Post Miri, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶51

5. Prasad s/o Dattatray Sonawane, Age : 31 years, Occu. Service, R/o Pimpri Nirmal, Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar

¶52

6. Atul s/o Ramdas Raut, Age : Major, Occu. Service, R/o Nirmal Nagar, Pipeline Road, Shivajinagar, Savedi, Tq. and District Ahmednagar

¶53

7. Paresh s/o Audumbar Gangekar, Age : 32 years, Occu. Business, R/o Juni Peth, Kashikapade Galli, Pandharpur, Tq. Pandharpur, District Solapur PETITIONERS VERSUS

¶54

1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶55

2. The Commissioner, Social Welfare Commissionerate, Maharashtra State, Pune

¶56

criwp1205-1497-2019

¶57

¶58

3. The Regional Dy. Commissioner, Social Welfare, Nashik

¶59

4. The District Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶60

5. The Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare, Ahmednagar

¶61

6. The Social Welfare Officer, Ahmednagar

¶62

7. The Pathardi Police Station, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar through its Police Inspector

¶63

8. The Bhingar Police Station, Tq. Nagar, Dist. Ahmednagar, through its Police Inspector

¶64

9. Sadguru Rohidasji S.C. Central Primary/Secondary School, Khandgaon, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar, through its Headmaster

¶65

10. Shri Subhash s/o Bansi Salve, Age : Major, occu. President of Sadguru Rohidasji Bahuuddeshya Gramin Vikas Pratishthan, Ahmednagar, R/o Vijaynagar, Bhingar, Tq. Nagar, District Ahmednagar

¶66

11. Mrs. Mangal Anil Shinde, Age : Major Occu. Vice President of Sadguru Rohidasji Bahuuddeshya Gramin Vikas Pratishthan, Ahmednagar, R/o Indiranagar, Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar

¶67

12. Shri Anil s/o Tulshidas Shinde, Age : Major, Occu. Secretary of Sadguru Rohidasji Bahuuddeshya Gramin Vikas Pratishthan, Ahmednagar, R/o Shri Yash

¶68

criwp1205-1497-2019

¶69

¶70

Construction, Flat No.204,
Near Jalsa Hotel, Alamgeer Road,
Bhingar, Ahmednagar

¶71

13. Shri Sanjay s/o bansi Salve, Age : Major, Occu. Trustee of Sadguru Rohidasji Bahuuddeshya Gramin Vikas Pratishthan, Ahmednagar, R/o Vijaynagar, Bhingar, Tq. Nagar, District Ahmednagar

¶72

14.Mrs. Anita Subhash Salve,
Age : Major, Occu. Treasurer of
Sadguru Rohidasji Bahuuddeshya
Gramin Vikas Pratishthan,
Ahmednagar, R/o Vijaynagar, Bhingar,
Tq. Nagar, District Ahmednagar

¶73

15.Shri Raju s/o Bansi Salve,
Age : Major, Occu. Trustee of
Sadguru Rohidasji Bahuuddeshya
Gramin Vikas Pratishthan,
Ahmednagar, R/o Alamgeer Road,
Bhingar, Tq. Nagar,
District Ahmednagar

¶74

16.Mrs. Rekha Sanjay Salve,
Age : Major, occu. Trustee of
Sadguru Rohidasji Bahuuddeshya
Gramin Vikas Pratishthan,
Ahmednagar, R/o Vijaynagar, Bhingar,
Tq. Nagar, District Ahmednagar

¶75

RESPONDENTS

¶76

Mr. Arvind G. Ambetkar, Advocate for the petitioners
in both Writ Petitions

¶77

Mrs. D.S. Jape and Mr. D.R. Kale, A.P.Ps. for the
respondent/State

¶78

Mr. D.D. Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent Nos.11 to 17
in Cri. Writ Petition No.1205/2019 and for respondent
Nos.10 to 16 in Cri. Writ Petition No.1497/2019

¶79

CORAM :T.V. NALAWADE AND
S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.

¶80

DATE :19th NOVEMBER, 2019

¶81

criwp1205-1497-2019

¶82

¶83

JUDGMENT (PER : T.V. NALAWADE, J.) :

¶84

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with

¶85

the consent of learned counsels for the parties, heard
finally.

¶86

2.Petitioners from both these proceedings are

¶87

employees of Ashram Schools run by the respondents. They
have made allegations against the Management of the
school that they were deceived by the Management by
falsely representing that they would give appointments
to the petitioners on permanent posts in the schools.
Initially, orders on temporary basis were given to them.
It is alleged by the petitioners that for giving orders
on permanent posts, the respondents/Management have
extracted money from them. They have mentioned the
amounts which they were required to pay to the
Management, which are in lakhs in each case. It is
their contention that they were required to sell their
lands and property to collect money. It is the
contention of the petitioners that even when they paid
the amount to the Management, the appointments on
permanent posts were not given to them and they are thus
deceived by the Management.

¶88

criwp1205-1497-2019

¶89

¶90

3.Petitioner Ramesh from Criminal Writ Petition
No.1205/2019 has contended that he paid the amount to
the Management in the year 2013. He was appointed on
temporary post in the year 2007. The contention of the
petitioners in the said Writ Petition shows that they
were deceived from the year 2007 to 2014. There is
record with some of the petitioners to the effect that
when they insisted the Management to give the
appointments or return the money, cheques of some amount
were given to some of the petitioners but those cheques
also bounced.

¶91

4.The State has filed reply. The reply filed by
the State shows that there was scheme of the Central
Government in respect of such Ashram Schools,
residential schools of giving them grant-in-aid. 90% of

¶92

the amount required to run the school was given by the
Central Government. Surprisingly, the State has
contended that the Central Government ought to have been
made party-respondent in the present proceedings. These
petitions are not filed for seeking relief of direction
to give amount due to the petitioners and they are filed
for seeking directions to register crime in respect of

¶93

criwp1205-1497-2019

¶94

¶95

individual employees as those incidents took place on
different occasions and each complainant has different
story.

¶96

5.The submissions made and the say of the State
show that it is not disputed that the petitioners are
employees of the aforesaid schools and respondent Nos.11
to 17 of the first proceeding are the trustees of the
Institution which runs the schools. It is also not
disputed that under Government Resolution of the year
2013, permission was granted to some schools of the
Institution to run the schools on “no grant basis”, but
as per the scheme, they were also entitled to get the
grants. The schools are to be run for the benefit of
Scheduled Caste students. 90% grants are to be given by
the Central Government and 10% grant is to be collected
from the Non-Government Organizations. There is record

¶97

of scheme showing that the posts are made available on
the basis of strength of the students and there is such
mention in the reply-affidavit of the State also. The
amounts which are to be given to the employees, either
as salary or allowances, are also mentioned in the
scheme. Admittedly, such amounts are not given to the
petitioners.

¶98

criwp1205-1497-2019

¶99

¶100

6.It is the case of the State that on the basis

¶101

of the report given by one such employee, crime came to
be registered on 20th August, 2019 at C.R. No.I-627/2019
for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It can be
said that the concerned Police Station wants to
investigate into all the matters, in respect of so many
cases in C.R. No.I-627/2019 when the complaints are in
respect of the incidents which took place between the
year 2007 and 2014.

¶102

7.The learned counsel for the Institution/

¶103

Management submitted that there is some dispute between
the employees and the Institution and the Management has
given report against some employees and only to
counterblast the reports, the allegations are made
against the Management, which are false. The record
produced by the Institution shows that under various
counts, grant-in-aid is given and as per the scheme, the
posts are presumed to be created on the basis of
strength of the students. Allegation that false
representation was made to give appointment on permanent
posts is the base of the matters.

¶104

criwp1205-1497-2019

¶105

¶106

8.It is not probable that due to some dispute
between the employees and the Institution with regard to
functioning of the Institution or the Management, false
reports are given. The submissions made show that the
amount around Rs.1.42 crore was collected by the
Management from the staff members, which are 25 in
number. It is the contention of the Institution that by

¶107

way of salary from the year 2013 to 2018, the
Institution disbursed the amount of Rs.1.82 crores.
This submission made by the Management has no meaning as
the Institution cannot be allowed to collect the money
from the employees for giving the appointments on
permanent posts and particularly when the Institution is
entitled to receive grant-in-aid. This is nothing but
exploitation of the employees and the instances of
collecting money illegally for giving appointments to
the employees cannot be taken lightly.

¶108

9.Under the provisions of Section 219 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, three offences of same kind
committed within one year may be charged together. This
is enabling provision and that cannot come in the way of
the employees to raise their grievances individually.
There are separate incidents of cheating in respect of

¶109

criwp1205-1497-2019

¶110

¶111

each employee and in ordinary course, separate crimes
need to be registered on the basis of the reports given
by the employees in respect of cheating. If all the
cases are clubbed together, it will create only
complications and during the trial, there will be
problems of all kinds and the case cannot be concluded
within reasonable time. If there are separate cases,
progress can be made at least in some cases and those
can be decided expeditiously. In view of such

¶112

difficulties and the position of law, this Court holds
that separate crimes need to be registered on the basis
of the reports given by each employee. In the result,
we pass the following order:-

¶113

O R D E R

¶114

(i)Both Writ Petitions are allowed.
(ii)Criminal Writ Petition No.1205 of 2019 is
allowed in terms of prayer clause (C) and
Criminal Writ Petition No.1497 of 2019 is

¶115

allowed in terms of prayer clause (C). The
prayer of registering crime is only granted.

¶116

(iii)Crimes need to be registered in respect of
petitioners on the basis of reports given by
them.

¶117

criwp1205-1497-2019

¶118

¶119

(iv)There will be liberty to the petitioners to
approach appropriate forum for other reliefs.

¶120

(v)Rule is made absolute in above terms.

¶121

[S.M. GAVHANE][T.V. NALAWADE]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶122

npj/criwp1205-1497-2019

Ramesh S/O. Gorakh Chakranarayan and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh S/O. Gorakh Chakranarayan and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Mujtaba Khan S/O. Liyayat Khan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Yuvraj S/O. Sheshrao Ranveer and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rekha W/O. Bhausaheb Jare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ramnarayan S/O. Dashrath Bahekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sayyed Noor Sayyed Ibrahim (C-8658) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Bhaskar Patil (C-54) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others