Shivaji Gulabrao Kalel and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Shivaji Gulabrao Kalel and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) till the returnable date (22nd July 2025); matter stood over, with the Joint Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) directed to file a detailed, non-delegable affidavit reply within two weeks answering the Court's questions.

Issue for consideration

Whether the inbuilt mechanism provided under Section 83 to 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act can be made otious by the Investigating Agency — the Joint Commissioner of Police to explain on Affidavit. +3 more

Court's answer

The Joint Commissioner of Police shall explain on Affidavit whether the inbuilt mechanism provided under Section 83 to 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act can be made otious by the Investigating Agency (issue 1).

Ratio / Principle

Taking into consideration the unnecessary complications created by the Investigating Agency in the present crime, the Court deemed it appropriate to direct the Joint Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) to file a detailed reply to the present Application.

Key takeaways

The Joint Commissioner of Police was directed not to delegate his powers to any subordinate Officer while filing the said reply.ratio¶28
The Joint Commissioner of Police shall answer on Affidavit whether Special Auditor Balu Bangar (Class-II, Cooperative Banks) could venture into lodgment of the present crime without following the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act provisions (issue 2), the answers being in addition to the reply to be filed.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Coram: A. S. Gadkari and Rajesh S. Patil, JJ.), interlocutory 'P.C.' order dated 1st July 2025 in Criminal Application (A.P.L.) No. 1118 of 2024 (Vasant Raghunath Nagvekar & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.), heard along with Criminal Writ Petition No. 2783 of 2024 (Shivaji Gulabrao Kalel & Ors.), with Sandeep Ankush More intervening through Interim Applications Nos. 4861 and 4885 of 2024. Observing 'unnecessary complications created by the Investigating Agency in the present crime', the Court directed the Joint Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) to file a detailed reply to the Application, personally and without delegation of powers, within two weeks. The reply must additionally answer, on Affidavit: (i) whether the inbuilt mechanism under Section 83 to 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act can be made otious by the Investigating Agency; (ii) whether Mr. Balu Bangar, a Special Auditor, Class-II, Cooperative Banks, could venture into lodgment of the present crime without following that Act, given the crime was 'expeditiously' investigated culminating in a chargesheet; (iii) if the answers are negative, what action the top ranking Police Officer(s) intend to take against the concerned; and (iv) inquiry into the Applicants' contention that the F.I.R. was lodged by Balu Bangar under the pressure of Mr. Sandeep More, who serves in the Police Department at Mumbai. Matter stood over to 22nd July 2025, with ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) till the returnable date. No precedent was cited and no substantive right was finally adjudicated.

Osk 20-Apl-1118-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (A.P.L.) NO. 1118 OF 2024

Vasant Raghunath Nagvekar & Ors. … Applicants

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4861 OF 2024

IN

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (A.P.L.) NO. 1118 OF 2024

Sandeep Ankush More … Intervenor In the matter between :- Vasant Raghunath Nagvekar & Ors. … Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

WITH

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2783 OF 2024

Shivaji Gulabrao Kalel & Ors. … Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4885 OF 2024 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2783 OF 2024

Sandeep Ankush More … Intervenor In the matter between :-

1/3

Osk 20-Apl-1118-2024.doc Shivaji Gulabrao Kalel & Ors. … Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

Mr. Digajmaan Mishra a/w. Mr. Arpit K. Ashok & Mr. Dipak Y. Jadhav i/b. Mr. Laxman Kalel for Applicants / Petitioners.

Ms. Huda Sayyad a/w. Ms. Namrata Shettigar i/b. Mr. Imran Nasir Shaikh for Intervenor.

Ms. Prajakta P. Shinde, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State.

P.S.I. Mr. Jaywant Pawar, Pantnagar Police Station, Mumbai, present.

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 1^st July 2025.

P.C. :

Taking into consideration the unnecessary complications created

by the Investigating Agency in the present crime, we deem it appropriate to direct the Joint Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) to file its detailed reply to the present Application.

We direct the Joint Commissioner of Police, not to delegate his powers to any subordinate Officer, while filing the said reply.

2.1) The Joint Commissioner of Police shall explain on Affidavit, as to whether the inbuilt mechanism provided under the provisions of Section 83 to 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act can be made otious by

the Investigating Agency.

2/3

Osk 20-Apl-1118-2024.doc

2.2) Whether Mr. Balu Bangar, a Special Auditor, Class-II, Cooperative Banks, without following the the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, can venture into lodgment of present crime, which was expeditiously investigated by the Investigating Agency, culminating into filing of a chargesheet.

2.3) If the answers to the aforesaid two questions are in the negative,

then what action the top ranking Police Officer(s) are intending to take against the concerned. These questions noted above are to be answered in addition to the reply to be filed.

2.4) It is the contention of the learned Advocate for Applicants that, the F.I.R. in question is lodged by Mr. Balu Bangar under the pressure of Mr. Sandeep More, who is serving in Police Department at Mumbai. It is therefore also necessary for the Joint Commissioner of Police to conduct inquiry from the said angle and to tell this Court the absolute truth on Affidavit.

2.5) The said reply be filed within a period of two weeks from today.

1. Stand over to 22^nd July 2025.

Till the returnable date, ad-interim relief in terms of prayer

clause (a).

( RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. )

Digitally signed by OMKAR OMKAR SHIVAHAR SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN KUMBHAKARN Date: 2025.07.04 11:47:30 +0530

3/3

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the inbuilt mechanism provided under Section 83 to 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act can be made otious by the Investigating Agency — the Joint Commissioner of Police to explain on Affidavit.¶29
The court held
The Joint Commissioner of Police shall explain on Affidavit whether the inbuilt mechanism provided under Section 83 to 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act can be made otious by the Investigating Agency (issue 1).ratio¶29
2.
Whether Mr. Balu Bangar, a Special Auditor, Class-II, Cooperative Banks, can venture into lodgment of the present crime without following the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, the crime having been expeditiously investigated and a chargesheet filed.¶33
The court held
The Joint Commissioner of Police shall answer on Affidavit whether Special Auditor Balu Bangar (Class-II, Cooperative Banks) could venture into lodgment of the present crime without following the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act provisions (issue 2), the answers being in addition to the reply to be filed.ratio¶33
3.
If the answers to the aforesaid two questions are in the negative, what action the top ranking Police Officer(s) are intending to take against the concerned.¶35
The court held
If the answers to the aforesaid two questions are in the negative, the Joint Commissioner of Police is to state what action the top ranking Police Officer(s) intend to take against the concerned (issue 3).ratio¶35
4.
Whether the F.I.R. in question was lodged by Mr. Balu Bangar under the pressure of Mr. Sandeep More (serving in the Police Department at Mumbai) — inquiry to be conducted by the Joint Commissioner of Police from this angle.¶36
The court held
In view of the contention that the F.I.R. was lodged under pressure of Mr. Sandeep More (Police Department, Mumbai), the Joint Commissioner of Police must conduct inquiry from the said angle and tell the Court the absolute truth on Affidavit (issue 4).ratio¶36