Allowed

Ramkrishna Dnyaneshwar Kalekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC14 Dec 2023APPLN/1757/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application regarding land record correction allegations, the High Court held that the applicant was not involved in the crime as no overt acts were indicated. Further investigation or reinvestigation was ordered, clarifying that this might lead to the applicant becoming an accused if new evidence emerges.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed with observations directing that if further investigation or reinvestigation yields against the applicant, he stands trial accordingly.

Ramkrishna Dnyaneshwar Kalekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Bombay HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2023:BHC-AUG:26564-DB

¶2

1757.2021APPLN

¶3

-1-

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

1062 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1757 OF 2021

¶6

Ramkrishna S/o Dnyaneshwar Kalekar

¶7

..APPLICANT

¶8

-VERSUS-

¶9

The State of Maharashtra

¶10

Jagannath S/o Vitthalrao Ghadge

¶11

..RESPONDENTS

¶12

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Tungar Hrishikesh V. APP for Respondent/State : Mr.V.K. Kotecha. Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr.Deshpande Ajay S.

¶13

CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : 14^th DECEMBER, 2023.

¶14

PER COURT :-

¶15

. Heard.

¶16

The applicant before us has been serving as correction clerk with the office of T.I.L.R. Parali. FIR has been lodged by respondent no.2. According to him, land bearing survey no.58 (Gat No.185) belong to his father. Until 2005-2006, 30 Gunthas of land was recorded in 7/12 extract of the said land, however, in the year 2006-2007, then Talathi of Sajja Muha reduced the land from 30 Are to 22 Are in 7/12 extract. The reduced 8 gunthas of land was shown

¶17

1757.2021APPLN -2-

¶18

in Khata extract of accused nos.1 to 3. Accused nos.1 to 3 were hand in gloves with Talathi Shri Mhaske. Accused nos.1 to 3 preferred application to the office of District Superintendent of Land Record for correction of land records belonging to them to bring it in consonance with mischief played by Shri Mhaske. That application was allowed by co-accused Dr. Veer (said to have been discharged). It is allegation of the informant that Dr. Veer neither issued any notice nor visited the site to measure the land and allowed the application preferred by accused nos.1 to 3. So far as regards the present applicant is concerned, it has been alleged that he was serving in the office of the T.I.L.R., Parali Vaijnath. Statement of Maharudra Ghadge and socalled panchas was recorded. He is said to be party to recording of the said statement.

¶19

According to the learned advocate for respondent no.2 and learned APP, the panchas have given statements that they were never present on 7^th April, 2018, when the statement of Maharudra Bhagwat Ghadge is shown to have been recorded. This material goes again to Deputy Superintendent of Land Records one Mr. Patil. It is not the case of the prosecution that the said statement is in handwriting of present applicant (correction clerk). Dr. Veer allowed the application directing the T.I.L.R. to correct the record and make it in consonance with the alleged mischief played by Shri Mhaske. The

¶20

1757.2021APPLN -3-

¶21

informant and two others preferred objection against the decision given by Dr. Veer dated 17^th May, 2018. The office of the District Superintendent of Land Records allowed the said objection in terms of the following order :-

¶22

“ आदेश :-

¶23

१) हरकतदारयांचादिदनांक२०/११/२०१९ रोजीचा हरकत अर्ज नारोजीचाहरकतअज�ना मंजूरकरण्यातयेतआहे.

¶24

२) मौजेसरफराजपुरता. परळीवै येथील सयेथील सस.नं५८ चा गट नं १८५चागट नं १८५नं१८ चा गट नं १८ मध्येदुरुस्तीकरणेबाबतईकडील सदिदनांक१७/०५/२०१८ चा गट नं १८५चे पत्रानेप्रसिसध्दकेल सेल साप्रारुपश ुध्दीपत्रकप्रस्तावयाव्दरेरद्द करण्यातयेतआहे.

¶25

३) अपील सदारयांचावाददिमळकतीबाबतदुरुस्तीकरणेचामूळअज� तांदित्रककारणास्तवनामंजूरकरण्यातयेतआहे. संबधीतानाकळवावे.”

¶26

. Clause (2) of the aforesaid order indicates that the order of

¶27

Dr. Veer was upset by the District Superintendent of Land Records vide order dated 22^nd January, 2020.

¶28

The factual position as stands indicate that mischief that was allegedly played by Shri Mhaske could not be rectified till date. The dispute is being given colour of civil proceeding contending that the mistake had occurred in implementation of a Consolidation

¶29

1757.2021APPLN -4-

¶30

proceedings. The consolidation authorities were requested to rectify the mistake. In this application, we are concerned with the role of the present applicant, a correction clerk. After order of Dr. Veer was passed, 15 days time was given to not implement the said order. Within a month from the date of the order informant and his family members approached the office of District Superintendent of Land Records. As such present applicant had no occasion to correct the record as was directed by order of Dr. Veer (co-accused) dated 17.05.2018. Although, in the FIR the present applicant is alleged to have been a conspirator along with Dr. Veer and other staff members of the office of T.I.L.R., except this statement, there is nothing to indicate the present applicant made any overt act or omission in his duty so as to infer his involvement in crime in question.

¶31

The learned advocate for the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.1470 of 2021 submits that shadow investigation has been made, therefore, the petition is preferred for further investigation or re-investigation. We make it clear that if the said petition is allowed and something further comes on record, either in further investigation or reinvestigation against the applicant, he would necessarily be an accused in the case. Since as on today, there is nothing against the applicant to make him stand trial, we have no option but to allow this application with the aforesaid observations.

¶32

1757.2021APPLN

¶33

-5-

¶34

The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause “B”.

¶35

(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)

¶36

(R.G. AVACHAT, J.)

¶37

sga/

Ramkrishna Dnyaneshwar Kalekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkrishna Dnyaneshwar Kalekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Vilas Dattatraya Anap and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kumar Ramchandra Jadhav Vs Pruthviraj B P

Charansing Ramsing Jarwal Vs Shir Madhukar R Deshmukh Education Officer Secondary Zilla Parishad Aurangabad

Vijendra Gulabsing Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Yogesh Shivaji Mali Vs Uday Narayan Patil Chairman Gram Vikas Sanstha Mudi and Others

Ramnath Ganpat Khod and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another