Dismissed¶38

Goroba Vitthal Avachar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC24 Sept 2025APPLN/1858/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR refused - Section 482 Cr.P.C. inherent powers - Gunthewari regularization irregularities, Nagar Parishad Dharashiv/Osmanabad - municipal Clerk's criminal liability under Sections 166/409 IPC - Bhajanlal and Niharika Infrastructure principles relied on - Collector-constituted inquiry committee report - expert opinion - political vendetta plea rejected at threshold - premature quashing at nascent investigation stage - Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench - Criminal Application No. 1858 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

None; application rejected, with liberty to the applicant to raise contentions regarding lack of involvement or authority before the Investigating Officer during investigation or before the trial Court at the appropriate stage. ¶38

Goroba Vitthal Avachar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 412 of 2023 against the applicant, who contends he was merely a Clerk in Nagar Parishad Dharashiv with no role or authority in sanctioning or approving Gunthewari proposals, should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +2 more

¶18

Court's answer

The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution; the consistent view of the Apex Court is that where the allegations prima facie disclose a cognisable offence, the Court should not stifle legitimate investigation at an early stage.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The FIR was lodged pursuant to an official inquiry conducted by a competent Committee constituted by the Collector, which revealed systematic irregularities in Gunthewari approvals involving public money and potential loss to the municipal body; the allegations therefore cannot be said to be frivolous or absurd on the face of it.

¶31

Key takeaways

The applicant's principal defence that he was a mere clerk with no decision-making authority is a matter of defence which can be tested only upon appreciation of evidence during trial; whether he was merely performing ministerial functions or actively aided in processing irregular proposals is a question of fact requiring examination of documentary records and witness testimonies, which this Court cannot embark upon under Section 482 Cr.P.C.ratio¶34
The investigation is at a preliminary stage; the Investigating Officer has yet to complete scrutiny of voluminous records, ascertain financial trails and identify individual responsibilities; interference by this Court at this juncture would obstruct a lawful investigation into serious allegations of misappropriation and breach of trust involving public funds.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 412 of 2023, Anandnagar Police Station (Sections 166, 409 read with 34 IPC), arising out of an inquiry into irregular sanctioning of Gunthewari (regularization) proposals by Nagar Parishad, Dharashiv, following a report of a Committee constituted by the Collector. Applicant, a Clerk in the Nagar Parishad, contended he had no authority to sanction or approve proposals, his role being purely ministerial, and that the proceedings were actuated by political vendetta. Held: inherent quashing power to be exercised sparingly and with great caution; where allegations prima facie disclose a cognisable offence, the Court should not stifle legitimate investigation at an early stage; FIR founded on an official inquiry report disclosing systematic irregularities involving public money is neither frivolous nor absurd; whether the applicant merely performed ministerial functions or actively aided irregular proposals is a question of fact for trial, not resolvable under Section 482; investigation being at a preliminary stage, interference would obstruct lawful investigation; plea of political motivation speculative absent impeccable material. Criminal application rejected; Rule discharged; applicant at liberty to urge lack of involvement or authority before the Investigating Officer or the trial Court at the appropriate stage.

¶1

1858-24-APPLN.odt

¶2

2025:BHC-AUG:29937-DB

¶3

{1}

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1858 OF 2024

¶6

Goroba S/o. Vitthal Aavachar, Age: 51 years, Occu: Service, R/o. Limboni Gag, Tambari Vibhag, Dharashiv, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. … Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Maharashtra Through PI. Police Station Anandnagar, Osmanabad (Dharashiv) Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.

¶9

The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Osmanabad (Dharashiv) Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad

¶10

Manoj S/o. Dattatray Kallure, Age: Major, Occu: Service, Assi. Town Planning Officer, Municipal Council, Dharashiv (Osmanabad). … Respondents

¶11

Mr. Jaydeep S. Kadam, Advocate for Applicant Mr. G.A. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent No.1 – State

¶12

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

¶13

DATED : 24 SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶14

JUDGMENT [Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.] :-

¶15

Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties heard finally.

¶16

1858-24-APPLN.odt

¶17

{2}

¶18

The present criminal application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying for quashing of FIR No. 412 of 2023 registered with Anandnagar Police Station, District Usmanabad for offences punishable under Section 166, 409 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The applicant seeks quashing of the said FIR primarily on the ground that he was merely a Clerk working in the Nagar Parishad Dharashiv and had no role or authority in sanctioning or approving the Gunthewari (regularization proposals), alleged to have been irregularly approved, resulting in alleged misappropriation of public funds.

¶19

The prosecution case in brief is that the informant Manoj Dattatreya Kalure, who is working as Planning Assistant at Nagar Parishad Dharashiv have lodged the FIR stating that on 2^nd December, 2023 stating that the stating that during the tenure of Shri Hari Kalyan Yalgate, Chief Officer of Nagar Parishad Dharashiv, several Gunthewari proposals were sanctioned in contravention of prescribed rules leading to large scale of misappropriation of public funds. It is further alleged that on 25^th July 2023, the Collector, Dharashiv constituted an inquiry Committee under the Chairmanship of Shri Muravkar, Assistant Director, Town Planning Department, Dharashiv. The said Committee after scrutiny of available records submitted a report on 26^th September, 2023 to the Collector opining that irregularities and misappropriation

¶20

1858-24-APPLN.odt

¶21

¶22

had indeed taken place in the sanctioning of Gunthewari proposals. Acting upon the said report, the collector called for written explanations from the concerned officials and further directed that a criminal offence be registered under SectionS 166 and 409 of IPC. Pursuant thereto, the present FIR came to be lodged against Shri Vidhate, Shri Kawde, the present applicant, and Shri Hari Kalyan Yalgate alleging collective involvement in the financial irregularities while handling the proposal of Gunthewari.

¶23

The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant was at all material times working as Clerk in the Nagar Parishad and had no authority to sanction or approve or verify the Gunthewari proposals. His limited role was purely ministerial; namely, to place files before the higher officers. It is contended that the power to grant sanction or approval lies exclusively with the Chief Officer and other superior authorities as per the Maharashtra Municipalities Act. The learned Advocate for the applicant further argued that the entire proceedings have been initiated at the behest of political leaders following questions raised in the Legislative Assembly by the local MLA and that the inquiry and FIR were motivated by political vendetta. According to the applicant, there is not a single averment in the FIR attributing any act of misappropriation or dishonest intention against

¶24

1858-24-APPLN.odt

¶25

{4}

¶26

him. The learned Advocate further argued that the continuation of prosecution against the applicant despite absence of any specific role or mens rea amounts to an abuse of process of law. Reliance is placed on several settled principles that mere clerical or forwarding duties cannot attract criminal liabilities under Sections 166 or 409 of IPC which requires proof of willful misconduct and criminal breach of trust.

¶27

Per Contra, learned APP opposed the application and submitted that the FIR is based on detailed inquiry report submitted by a duly constituted committee after scrutiny of more than 1070 Gunthewari proposals handled by the concerned officers including the applicant. It is submitted that during investigation, the investigating officer sought an expert opinion from the Office of the District Collector by letter dated 14^th December, 2023 and the expert submitted a detailed opinion on 28^th February 2024 further corroborating that serious irregularities had occurred in handling Gunthewari proposals. The learned APP emphasized that statements of several witnesses from the various departments and also the officers who had been part of the inquiry committee have been recorded which indicates that documents relating to the proposals were found to be incomplete, non-agricultural taxes were not collected and unauthorized rebates up to 50% were granted without any legal provisions by the accused persons. These irregularities

¶28

1858-24-APPLN.odt

¶29

{5}

¶30

according to the prosecution suggest a concerted act by all the accused persons including the present applicant. It was therefore submitted that at this nascent stage of investigation when the voluminous documents and multiple cases are under scrutiny, it would be premature and improper for this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

¶31

We have carefully perused the FIR, the material annexed thereto and considered the submissions advanced by both the sides. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. The guiding principles for quashing of an FIR have been laid down in the celebrated judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal , reported in 992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, and Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra , 2021 (6) SCC 73. The consistent view of the Apex Court is that where the allegations prima facie disclose a cognisable offence, the Court should not stifle legitimate investigation at an early stage. In the present case, the FIR has been lodged pursuant to an official inquiry conducted by a competent Committee constituted by the Collector. The inquiry revealed systematic irregularities in Guntewari approvals involving public money and potential loss to the municipal body. The allegations therefore cannot be said to be frivolous or absurd on the face of it. The applicant's

¶32

1858-24-APPLN.odt

¶33

{6}

¶34

principal defence that he was a mere clerk with no decision-making authority appears to be a matter of defence which can be tested only upon appreciation of the evidence during trial. Whether the applicant was merely performing ministerial functions or actively aided in processing irregular proposals is a question of fact, requiring examination of documentary records and witness testimonies. This Court cannot embark upon such a factual inquiry under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Moreover, the investigation appears to be at a preliminary stage. The Investigating Officer has yet to complete scrutiny of voluminous records, ascertain financial trails and identify individual responsibilities. Interference by this Court at this juncture would obstruct a lawful investigation into a serious allegations of misappropriation and breach of trust involving public funds. The contention regarding political motivation or male fides also cannot be accepted at this stage in absence of impeccable material. The FIR is based on an official inquiry report by statutory authorities, not a private complaint. Allegations of political influence are thus speculative at this point.

¶35

Accordingly, having regard to the gravity of the allegations, the stage of investigation and the legal position governing exercise of inherent powers, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for quashing of the FIR. The applicant is at liberty to raise all

¶36

1858-24-APPLN.odt

¶37

contentions regarding lack of involvement or authority before the Investigating Officer during investigation or before the trial Court at the appropriate stage. We find no illegality, arbitrariness or abuse of process in registration of the FIR. The prosecution must be permitted to proceed to investigate and draw its logical conclusion.

¶38

The criminal application thus stands rejected.

¶39

Rule discharged.

¶40

[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶41

S P Rane

Goroba Vitthal Avachar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goroba Vitthal Avachar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Kundlik Aalne vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Others

Vitthal Narayan Gadekar and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Vijay Dnyanoba Kharat and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Manik Ambadas Shimple and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Wasim Khan S/O. Sultan Khan and Others Vs the Police Inspector, City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad and Another

Aslam Shabbir Shaikh @ Bunty Jahagirdar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another