Chandrashekhar S/O Purushotamrao Dhude vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Ps Sawangi Meghe Wardha Dist.Wardha

No.3, who was working as ‘Talathi’ at the relevant time. The FIR No. 13195 of 2017 dated 28.09.2017 registered with police station Sawangi Meghe, District Wardha, alleges that the petitioner carried out a mutation entry in relation to the land in dispute on the basis of the fabricated document. Accordingly, the crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’).

¶20

4 After the investigation was over, the charge-sheet was filed on 29.06.2019.

¶21

5 Thereupon, the petitioner applied for discharge before

¶22

the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wardha in RCC No. 448 of 2019.

¶23

6 The learned Magistrate vide order dated 24.04.2023 rejected the application of the petitioner, which was the subject matter of Criminal Revision Application No. 24 of 2023 before the learned Sessions Judge at Wardha. The learned Sessions Judge vide

¶24

12.WP.358.2024 judge.odt

¶25

judgment and order dated 29.12.2023 maintained the order of the Magistrate. Hence, this petition.

¶26

7 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite

¶27

the fact that there is nothing against the applicant to show that he is involved in the alleged offence, the trial Court denied the prayer for discharge. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner do not attract any offence more particularly the offences for which the present crime was registered. He submits that he did his official duty as talathi by carrying out mutation entry as per the order of the Tahsildar/accused No. 4.

¶28

8 On the other hand, learned APP submits that since the offence is registered under Section 34 of the IPC and as it is alleged that all the accused in collusion committed the offence, the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Revisional Court rightly held against the petitioner.

¶29

9 In the above referred backdrop, I have perused the record, submissions and the impugned order.

¶30

12.WP.358.2024 judge.odt

¶31

4

¶32

10 From the record it is evident that the allegations against the accused are that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in collusion with accused No. 6 got prepared back dated and bogus non agriculture order dated 23.03.1989 in relation with the land in question i.e. land bearing old survey No. 34, New survey No.26, area 2.01 H. R. at Mouza Alodi originally owned by Atmaram Sitaram Tidke, through Naib Tahsildar/accused No. 4. As far as the petitioner is concerned, it is alleged that the petitioner took out mutation about the said non agriculture order on 12.08.2008 after 19 years.

¶33

11 From the above referred case of the prosecution, it can be seen that the only allegation against the applicant is that he carried out the mutation entry as per the orders of the Naib Tahsildar/accused No. 4.

¶34

12 Admittedly, the petitioner was working as Talathi and he was subordinate to accused No. 4. The order of the accused No. 4 is on record, who directed the petitioner to carry out the

¶35

12.WP.358.2024 judge.odt

¶36

5

¶37

mutation. The petitioner accordingly carried out the mutation in compliance of the order of Naib Tahsildar/ accused No.4 and while carrying out such mutation entry he specifically observed that such entry was being taken and recorded as per the order of Naib Tahsildar.

¶38

13 Thus, it is evident that the petitioner was acting in his official capacity as Talathi. He followed the directions of his superior issued to him through order. Therefore, the act of the petitioner carrying out the mutation entry was nothing but the compliance of the order of the Naib Tahsildar.

¶39

14 As far as collusion is concerned, there is no material available in the charge-sheet to hold against the petitioner. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the learned Magistrate as well as the learned revisional Court committed error in rejecting the application of the petitioner for discharge.

¶40

15 In the circumstances, in absence of any prima facie

¶41

evidence against the petitioner as regards his involvement in the

¶42

12.WP.358.2024 judge.odt

¶43

6

¶44

alleged offence, the petition needs to be allowed. Accordingly, I pass the following order-

¶45

ii] The order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the

¶46

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wardha and order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha are hereby set aside.

¶47

iii] The application moved by the petitioner for discharge is allowed.

¶48

16 Rule made absolute in the above terms.

¶49

17 The criminal writ petition stands disposed of,

¶50

accordingly.

¶51

( ANIL S. KILOR, J. )

¶52

Namrata

¶53

Signed by: Miss Namrata Suryawanshi Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 07/03/2025 10:38:58

Chandrashekhar S/O Purushotamrao Dhude v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Ps Sawangi Meghe Wardha Dist.Wardha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrashekhar S/O Purushotamrao Dhude v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Ps Sawangi Meghe Wardha Dist.Wardha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Tryambak Sitaram Dipake Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Digras Dist.Yavatmal

Sau. Latabai Sambhaji Deshmukh vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Divisional Commissioner Nagpur Divsion, Nagpur and Another

Asian Cements Pipes and Concrete, Thr Proprietor Work vs Deputy Executive Engineer, Maha State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.

Sachin S/O Dashrath Sawant and Others Vs Kiran W/O Sachin Sawant

Ujjawal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha Rohini Tq Deoli Dist Wardha Thr Its Secetary Pritam Babarao Khadse vs Mr. Sumant Bhange, the Principal Secretary, Dept. of Social Justice and Special Assistance

Umesh Kishavrao Wazulkar Vs Nishant Multistate Co. Op Credit Soc. Ltd. Akola Branch Shirpur Jain Thr. Rameshwar Pralhad More