Dismissed

Geeta Yashwant Sadul and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Dec 2019WP/3939/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR against a headmaster and clerk alleging corruption under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for insisting on donations. The court held the petitioners abused their position and the matter needed examination by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; FIR not quashed.

Geeta Yashwant Sadul and Anr. Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

34-cri-wp-3939-19.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3939 OF 2019

¶3

Sou. Geeta Y. Sadul and anr. V/s.

¶4

… Petitioners

¶5

State of Maharashtra and ors. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Ritesh Thobde for the Petitioner. Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶7

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &

¶8

N.R. BORKAR, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 19, 2019.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1] The Headmaster and the Clerk in employment of Educational Institution are before this Court to quash FIR under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The contention is as per the Resolution taken before hand, the Management was collecting donations and the petitioners have insisted only for its payment.

¶11

2] Learned APP has taken us through the relevant portions of the FIR.

¶12

3] It appears that the complainant (respondent No.2) was present at the time of passing of Resolution. However, he

¶13

1/3

¶14

Dinesh Sherla

¶15

34-cri-wp-3939-19.doc

¶16

could not pay Rs.20,000/- as donation. He paid only Rs.2000/-. The Management, therefore, informed the Education Ofcer and his salary was withheld. The Education Ofcer then informed respondent No.2 about the directions issued by the Management and respondent No.2 therefore, came back to the Management and there, he was told that as he has not paid complete amount, his salary was withheld.

¶17

4] The contention is donation amount or its collection cannot be seen as bribe.

¶18

5] We are not willing to examine this aspect in the present matter in extraordinary jurisdiction. The petitioners have abused their position and forced unwilling respondent No.2 to pay the donation. Not only this, they have also brought influence upon the Education Ofcer, who has withheld the salary of respondent No.2.

¶19

6] We fail to understand as to why the Investigating Ofcer has not invoked other provisions of Indian Penal Code in the matter.

¶20

2/3

¶21

Dinesh Sherla

¶22

34-cri-wp-3939-19.doc

¶23

7] We therefore, dismiss this Petition. Needless to mention

¶24

that the question whether amount collected is bribe or not can be looked into by the Trial Court at appropriate juncture.

¶25

(N.R. BORKAR, J.) (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶26

3/3

¶27

Dinesh Sherla

Geeta Yashwant Sadul and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta Yashwant Sadul and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Rajesh Hasmukhbhai Shah and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Abdul Bashir Hamid Khan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jai Singh S/O Late, Ram Singh and Anr. Vs the Chairperson and Ors.

Santoshkumar Shrirampratap Singh @ Babloo Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sayed Nasim Murtuza Husain @ Nasim Sayed and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Annie Joseph Miranda Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.