Ravikant Shridharrao Dahale v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC3 Oct 2024ABA/271/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail — Government officers (Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Assistant Registrar and District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society) — FIR by society Secretary alleging sale of four society plots to co-accused Nos. 2 to 5 on false and bogus documents, sale-deeds registered 03.06.2022 — permission for sale dated 18.05.2022 not challenged before Co-operative Court — earnest money receipts bear informant's signature — prima facie no substance in allegations — abuse of criminal process against Government authorities — applications allowed in terms of interim order — Coram: R. M. Joshi, J.

What did the court decide?

All three anticipatory bail applications allowed in terms of the interim order. ¶¶24

Ravikant Shridharrao Dahale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

All three anticipatory bail applications allowed in terms of the interim order.

¶¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicants — a Sub-Registrar of Assurances, an Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society and a District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society — are entitled to anticipatory bail in the First Information Report alleging that they granted permission for sale and registered the sale-deeds without verifying the documents.

¶¶3

Court's answer

The case is a classic example of how the criminal process of law can be abused and Government authorities pressurised and involved in criminal cases.

¶¶13

Ratio / Principle

There is a possibility that the First Information Report was filed because the informant did not get any share in the said transactions, in view of the documentary evidence in the form of earnest money receipts bearing the signature of the informant.

¶¶24

Key takeaways

Prima facie, there is no substance in the allegations against the present Applicants.ratio¶¶24
The anticipatory bail applications deserve to be allowed and are allowed accordingly in terms of the interim order.ratio¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (R. M. Joshi, J.), 3 October 2024 — Allowed Anticipatory Bail Applications Nos. 271, 294 and 547 of 2024 filed by a Sub-Registrar of Assurances, an Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society and a District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society arraigned in an FIR arising out of the sale of four plots of the Veej Tantrik Karmachari Gruh Nirman Sanstha to co-accused Nos. 2 to 5 allegedly on false and bogus documents, with the sale-deeds registered on 03.06.2022. The Court noted that the allegations in the FIR were essentially against the Chairman and committee members; that the Assistant Registrar's permission for sale dated 18.05.2022 had not been challenged before the Co-operative Court or any other Court; and that earnest money receipts bearing the informant's own signature suggested the report may have been filed because the informant got no share in the transactions. Observing that the case exemplified abuse of the criminal process to pressurise Government authorities, the Court prima facie found no substance in the allegations against the Applicants and allowed the applications in terms of the interim order.

¶1

1 - aba271.24.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

936 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 271 OF 2024

¶4

Ravikant Shridharrao Dahale ….Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another …..Respondents

¶5

….. Mr. S. S. Panale, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. B. B Bhise, APP for the State.

¶6

AND ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 294 OF 2024 Sunil Uttareshwar Shirapurkar .....Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another .....Respondents

¶7

….. Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. B. B. Bhise, APP for the State.

¶8

AND ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 547 OF 2024 Dhanaji Pandurang Kale .. Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another .....Respondents ….. Mrs R. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. B. B. Bhise, APP for the State.

¶9

¶10

aba271.24.odt

¶11

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 3^rd OCTOBER, 2024.

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

This is a classic example as to how the criminal process of law can be abused and Government authorities can be presssurised and involved in criminal cases.

¶14

First informant claims himself to be the Secretary of the Veej Tantrik Karmachari Gruh Nirman Sanstha. In the First Information Report, he is alleged that without consent of the members, the constitution of the committee was changed. In the new committee, he is not the office bearer. There is allegation that the Chariman i.e. the co-accused and other members have sold the 4 plots of the society to co-accused Nos. 2 to 5. There is allegation that on the basis of false and bogus documents the said transfer was effected. Allegation is also made that bogus signatures being made by the accused while executing the said transaction. Insofar as present Applicants are concerned, there is allegation that without verifying the documents, permission for sale is granted and the said sale-deeds were registered on 03.06.2022.

¶15

¶16

aba271.24.odt

¶17

Applicants herein are Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society and District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society. Learned counsel appearing on their behalf submit that there are no specific allegations against the Applicants in the First Information Report and it is vaguely stated that without verifying the documents illegal permission for sale is granted by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society and on the basis of said documents, the Sub-Registrar has registered the saledeeds. Learned counsel for District Deputy Registrar has drawn attention of the Court to the document which indicates that infact the present informant is signatory in case of two transactions wherein earnest receipt is issued. According to him, this indicates that he had knowledge about the said transaction and the First Information Report is lodged by way of an after thought. It is also submitted on behalf of the Applicants that the Applicants being Government authorities, they are not required to consider as to whether the documents submitted before them are genuine or otherwise unless it is claimed so by any one. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the Assistant Registrar, before granting permission of sale, has made all the necessary enquiries and compliances were also called upon from the society. This, according

¶18

¶19

aba271.24.odt

¶20

to her, is reflected from the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 18.05.2024. Thus, it is the submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants that there is no evidence in order to connect the present Applicants with the crime.

¶21

Learned APP vehemently opposed the Applications by contending that the permission for sale was obtained on the basis of false and bogus documents. He drew attention of the Court to the investigation papers wherein, according to him, the resolutions passed do not show the signatures of the Secretary. It is his submission that it is the responsibility of the Applicants to verify the documents and then to grant permission or to register the documents of sale-deed.

¶22

It is not the case of the informant that the Chairman and the committee members of the society had sold the plot belonging to any member to any third person. Insofar as allegations in the First Information Report are concerned, they are essentially against the Chairman and the committee members to the effect that bogus documents were created under the bogus signatures and were submitted to the authorities concerned. A specific query was made

¶23

aba271.24.odt

¶24

to the learned APP as to whether permission granted by the Assistant Registrar for sale dated 18.05.2022 has been challenged till date. In response thereto, he submits that the said order has not been taken exception to before the Co-operative Court or any other Court. If it is so, this Court finds substance in the contention of learned counsel for the Applicants that there is a possibility that since the informant did not get any share in the said transactions, present report is filed, in view of the documentary evidence placed before the Court in the form of earnest money receipts which bear signature of the informant. Thus, this Court has no hesitation to prima facie observe that there is no substance in the allegations against the present Applicants. As such, applications deserve to be allowed and allowed accordingly in terms of the interim order.

¶25

( R. M. JOSHI) Judge

¶26

dyb

Ravikant Shridharrao Dahale v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravikant Shridharrao Dahale v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijaypal Bikki Singh vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Akash Siddharth Ingle vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjay Kumar Shaha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

President Secretary Sri Bruhanmath Hotgi and Anr. vs Pandurang Chintaman Kengar and Ors.

Ananda Kaduji Korde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Satish Madhavrao Morale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another