Sunday, 17 January 2016

Whether Magistrate can order investigation against accused even though ingredient of offence is not made out against accused?

The Bombay High Court, in the case of State
of Maharashtra Vs. Shashikant s/o. Eknath Shinde2
held thus:

When the Magistrate passes order
directing investigation under Section 156
[3] of Cr.P.C., it is necessary that, prior to
doing so, he should apply his mind to the
case before him. Least that is expected of
the Magistrate, is to verify from the
averments of the complaint as to whether
the ingredients to constitute the offence/s
complained of have been made out or not.
As such the order under Section 156 [3] of
Cr.P.C., should depict the application of
mind. No doubt the Magistrate is not
expected to give elaborate Judgment at
that stage. However, the least expected
is that the order should depict application
of mind and as to how the complaint
discloses the ingredients to constitute the
offence complained of.
Therefore, order passed by the Magistrate is
not in conformity with the observations of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar & others Vs.
M.K.Aiyappa and another [supra] and the Bombay High
Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs.
Shashikant s/o. Eknath Shinde [supra].
 [Underlines added]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1003 OF 2014
 Baburao s/o. Nagnath Gulave,

 VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra


 CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
 A.M.BADAR, JJ.
 Date: 6th February, 2015
Citation;2015 ALLMR(cri) 4248

1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith heard
with the consent of the parties.
2] This Criminal Writ Petition is filed praying
therein for quashing and setting aside the Private
Complaint M.A. No. 98/2013 filed before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Ahmedpur, District Latur and the
First Information Report No.173/2014, which is registered
with the Ahmedpur Police Station as per the directions
issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur, under Section 156 [3] of Criminal Procedure
Code for the offence punishable under Section 464, 465,
472, 420, 120 [3], 193, 203 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code to
the extent of Petitioners.
3] It is the case of the Petitioners that, Petitioners
No.1 and 2 are the persons, who were serving in the
Municipal Council, Ahmedpur at the relevant time and
petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are retired from services in the

month of February, 2012 and in the Year 2013,
respectively. The Petitioner No.3 is still in service on the
post of Junior Engineer and Petitioner No.4 has been
appointed in the office of Ahmedpur Municipal Council in
the Year 2009 and as such at the relevant time of the
alleged offence, he was not in the office of Municipal
Council.
4] It is further the case of the Petitioners that, the
Respondent No.2 original complainant had filed a Private
Complaint against the Petitioners and other co-accused
namely; Sayyad Pasha, being M.A. No.98/2013, before the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur for the
offences punishable under Section 464, 465, 472, 420, 120
[3], 193, 203 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is the case of
the original complainant that, co-accused Sayyed Pasha s/o.
Sayyed Ali, who has completed his education upto 8th
Standard, and thereafter he has left his education. But the
said Sayyed Pasha s/o. Sayyed Ali in the Year 1988 has
obtained a certificate of SSC Board and also marks memo
which shows that he has passed SSC Examination and also
a forged Transfer Certificate of School and on the said
Certificate he has obtained job in Ahmedpur Municipal
Council, Dist. Latur. As per the contention of the
complainant, said Sayyed Pasha who is co-accused has
never went to the School at Vasim, Taluka and District
Vasim in Zilla Parishad School. But, he has obtained forged
and fabricated Transfer Certificate of the said School
bearing No. 216 and Registration No. 1825 dated
20.06.1988 and the said Transfer Certificate is prepared by
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/01/2016 14:41:43 :::Bombay High Court
1003.2014 Cri.W.P.odt
4
the co-accused himself by making forged signature and
stamps.
5] It is further the case of the Petitioners that, as
per the contention of complainant the said co-accused
namely Sayyed Pasha s/o. Sayyed Ali has never appeared
for 10th Standard Examination, which was conducted in the
month of March, 1988, from Nagpur Division but he has
obtained a forged and fabricated marks memo bearing No.
236750 and Roll No. 134780 dated 20.06.1988. As per the
contention of the complainant, one of the witnesses namely
Sadashiv Karad has obtained all the necessary information
from the Nagpur Divisional Board and also from the
concerned School and from the said information it shows
that the co-accused Sayyed Pasha has never appeared for
10th Standard Examination. After receiving the said
information, the said witness No.1 namely Sadashiv Karad
has informed this fact to the Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad and Collector, Latur. After receiving the said
complaint, the Collector, Latur has informed to the Chief
Officer, Municipal Council, Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur on
26.09.2008 to enquire in the matter and inform accordingly.
It is the contention of the complainant that, the Petitioners
have conducted an enquiry as per the direction given by
the Collector, Latur, however, not recommended any
punishment in spite of proving the fact that, the co-accused
Sayyed Pasha has submitted forged and fabricated
documents. The Petitioners have not lodged any complaint
against the co-accused Sayyad Pasha, on the contrary, they
helped Sayyed Pasha for preparing the said documents.
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/01/2016 14:41:43 :::Bombay High Court
1003.2014 Cri.W.P.odt
5
6] It is further the case of the Petitioners that,
after presenting the complaint before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Ahmedpur, District Latur, on
04.12.2013, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Ahmedpur, District Latur by his order dated 31.07.2013,
directed the investigation u/s. 156 [3] of Criminal Procedure
Code. Accordingly, the Police Officer, Police Station
Ahmedpur was pleased to register crime, as Crime No.
173/2014 for offence punishable under Section 464, 465,
472, 420, 120 [3], 193, 203 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. It
is further the case of the Petitioners that, after receiving
the summons from the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Ahmedpur, District Latur, the Petitioners have filed Criminal
Misc. Application No. 54/2014, for anticipatory bail before
the Sessions Judge at Ahmedpur. The said Application was
heard on 30.07.2014, and the Sessions Court was pleased
to allow the Bail Application on execution of personal bond
and S.B. of Rs.15,000/- each, and further observed that,
applicants should make themselves available before the
Investigation Officer for interrogation, and investigation
purpose as and when called by Police Officer till
investigation is over.
7] It is further the case of the Petitioners that, the
Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Ahmedpur by his order
dated 22.08.2008 has constituted a Committee consisting
Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as per the letter dated
22.08.2008; it was informed to Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 that,
they should enquire into the matter and submit a detail
report to the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Ahmedpur,
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/01/2016 14:41:43 :::Bombay High Court
1003.2014 Cri.W.P.odt
6
Dist. Latur. It is further the case of the Petitioners that, as
per directions of Chief Executive Officer, the Petitioners
have enquired into the matter and they found that the coaccused
namely; Sayyed Pasha s/o. Sayyed Ali was initially
appointed in the Year 1988 with the Ahmedpur Municipal
Council as a labourer on daily wages, and afterwards he
was promoted as a Clerk in the Year 2002. At the relevant
time, he has submitted forged documents to the Scanning
Committee to which the Petitioners were not a part. It is
further the case of the Petitioners that, in the report dated
24.10.2008, it was specifically mentioned that, after
considering the documents and enquiry, the co-accused
Sayyed Pasha Ali at the time of appointing him as a Clerk,
submitted forged documents, and also opined that,
considering the service tenure of the co-accused Sayyed
Pasha the leniency should be shown towards him.
8] It is further the case of the Petitioners that,
from the complaint filed by the Respondent No.2
complainant, it is alleged that, the Respondent Nos. 1, 2
and 3 had knowledge about the said forged document, and
in spite of said knowledge they have helped to the coaccused
Sayyed Pasha in appointing as Junior Clerk. The
allegations against Petitioner No.4 is that, he has not given
the documents to the Respondent No.2 in spite of making
demands and refused to take the application. It is further
the case of the Petitioners that, from the above allegations
it is to be noted that, the Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 being not the
part of either appointing process nor in the promotion
process, and therefore, they had no any knowledge about
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/01/2016 14:41:43 :::Bombay High Court
1003.2014 Cri.W.P.odt
7
the forged document submitted by the co-accused Sayyed
Pasha. It is only after the enquiry into the matter for the
first time, it revealed to the Petitioners that, documents
submitted by Sayyed Pasha are forged. It is important to
note that, if the entire complaint filed by the Complainant is
read, there is no evidence placed on record regarding the
fact alleged that at the time of appointment in the year
1988, whether Petitioners were having any concern with
the selection process, so they could know the submission of
forged documents for appointment by accused No.1.
Moreover, the appointment of co-accused Sayyed Pasha in
the Year 1988 was not on the basis of forged certificate.
The forged certificate has been submitted by the coaccused
Sayyed Pasha at the time of promotion in the year
2002. At that time, the Petitioners herein were not part of
the Standing Committee and as such knowledge about the
forged document by the co-accused Sayyed Pasha could
not be known to them, therefore, the allegations that the
Petitioners helped the co-accused Sayyed Pasha in getting
appointments are falsified. Except the allegations that the
Petitioners helped the co-accused Sayyed Pasha in getting
appointment on the basis of forged document, there is no
iota of evidence to show either the knowledge or the
authority of the Petitioners, which show that, they have
knowledge about the alleged forged document, and in spite
of such knowledge they are in conspiracy with the coaccused
Sayyed Pasha in commission of the offence. It is
further case of the Petitioners that, Petitioner No.4 was
appointed in the office of Ahmedpur Municipal Council in
the Year 2009 as such, he could not have knowledge about
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/01/2016 14:41:43 :::Bombay High Court
1003.2014 Cri.W.P.odt
8
the forged document submitted by the co-accused Sayyed
Pasha who was appointed in the Year 1988 and
subsequently promoted in the Year 2002. But the
allegations against the Petitioner No.4 is not giving the
documents to the complainant No.2, however, there is no
any proof which shows that, the Petitioner No.4 has
rejected his application or there is any application
requesting for copies of the documents, on record.

9] It is further the case of the Petitioners that, the
complainant on 09.07.2013 had made an application to the
Collector, Latur in which the complainant had made
allegation against the co-accused Sayyed Pasha alone and
requested permission to prosecute him. The involvement
of Petitioners in the Private Complaint filed by the
complainant is an afterthought, as it can be revealed from
reading the contentions of the application filed to the
Collector.
10] The learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners submits that, the petitioners are the law abiding
citizen. On the contrary, Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 had
submitted the report to the Chief Officer, Municipal Council,
Ahmedpur after conducting an enquiry. They did not hide
any fact from the Higher Authorities and in the said report,
the Committee has specifically mentioned that, the said coaccused
Sayyed Pasha has submitted a forged document
and only suggestion / opinion is given regarding showing
the leniency considering his service tenure and family
background. The Petitioners are only the members of the
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/01/2016 14:41:43 :::Bombay High Court
1003.2014 Cri.W.P.odt
9
Committee and they are not the Authority, who can take
action against the co-accused Sayyed Pasha. Therefore,
they have done their job as Committee members in their
official capacity and to accept or reject the said report is
upto the Higher Authorities. Therefore, the contention
raised in the complaint are totally vague and it does not
disclose how the Committee members are responsible for
appointing Sayyed Pasha.
11] The learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners further submits that, even though the allegation
made in the complaint filed by the complainant are taken at
its face value and read in its entirety, the offence under
Section 464, 465, 472, 420, 120 [3], 193, 203 r/w.34 of
Indian Penal Code, which is registered as per the order
passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedpur,
District Latur, under Section 156 [3], is not disclosed.
Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners
submits that, Petition deserves to be allowed.
The learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent No.2 relying upon the averments in affidavit in
reply on behalf of Respondent No.2, made following
submissions:-
12] The learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent No.2 submits that, the challenge raised by the
Petitioners to the order dated 31st July, 2014, passed by the
Magistrate under Section 156 [3] of the Criminal Procedure
Code is misconceived and misplaced. Since the Petitioners
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/01/2016 14:41:43 :::Bombay High Court
1003.2014 Cri.W.P.odt
10
have approached this Court for raising their challenge at
very premature stage, inasmuch as, as on today, the
investigation to the crime pointed out by the Petitioners is
not completed and the matter is at the stage of
investigation only. Hence, on this sole ground, the
challenge raised by the Petitioners to the order passed by
Magistrate is not sustainable, and therefore, deserves to be
discarded at this stage of the matter.
13] It is further submitted that, the Petitioners, who
were / are employees of the Ahmedpur Municipal Council
have in fact assisted and helped the main accused namely
Sayyad Pasha Sayyad Ali in preparing forgery and for
playing fraud. Inasmuch as when an enquiry it was found
that, said Sayyad Pasha had obtained the employment in
Municipal Council, Ahmedpur by playing a fraud on the
system, the Petitioners who were the members of the
Enquiry Committee had no reason or business to make
recommendation that, criminal action be not taken against
the main accused namely Sayyad Pasha and he be retained
in service by imposing some minor punishment. This
recommendation made by the Enquiry Committee, of
which, the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 were members itself shows
their criminal act and mala fide intention. In that view of
the matter, after noticing the aforesaid aspect of the
matter, the deponent persuaded the matter before the
appropriate authorities for taking necessary action in the
matter. However, the concerned authorities including the
District Collector, Latur were not inclined to take
appropriate steps against the persons, who had played
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/01/2016 14:41:43 :::Bombay High Court
1003.2014 Cri.W.P.odt
11
fraud on the system. In that view of the matter, the
Petitioners had also made complaint to the concerned
Police Station as well as the Higher Police Authorities,
however, although, the cognizable crime was pointed out
by the Petitioners no steps were taken, therefore, the
Petitioners had no option except to file appropriate
complaint before the concerned Magistrate, who upon
going through the complaint has found that, the offence
pointed out is cognizable offence has directed investigation
in the matter upon due application of mind. Hence, there is
no substance in the contentions raised by the Petitioners in
the Writ Petition that, no criminal offence is made out
against them upon perusal of the contents of the complaint.
14] It is further submitted that, the moment the
fraud played by the accused Sayyad Pasha by relying on
false and fabricated educational qualification certificate so
as to obtain the employment was noticed by him, he
immediately made appropriate representation before the
concerned authorities for taking criminal action against the
accused persons. Such representation was made to the
District Collector also, accordingly, the District Collector has
directed the concerned Municipal Council to submit the
report, however, the Municipal Council informed the
concerned Collector that, already an action of demoting the
accused persons namely Sayyad Pasha Sayyad Ali has been
taken, therefore, no further action is necessary and
required. On the basis of said information by the concerned
Municipal Council, the District Collector has informed the
Petitioners that, already an action is taken against the
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/01/2016 14:41:43 :::Bombay High Court
1003.2014 Cri.W.P.odt
12
accused person. However, unfortunately, all the authorities
are not concerned or not interested to take criminal action
against the main accused and other accused persons for
their act of fraud on system.
15] It is further submitted that, it is pertinent to
note that, the Petitioners, although, acting as public servant
have illegally and by exceeding their limits have
recommended that, no criminal action be taken against the
main accused Mr. Sayyad Pasha, whereas having found
that, the said Sayyad Pasha had in fact committed fraud on
the system by preparing false and fabricated documents so
as to seek the employment, the Petitioners ought to have
stopped there and ought not to have recommended not to
take criminal action for such act of fraud. The conduct on
the part of Petitioners to recommend not to take criminal
action against the person, who is apparently indulged in
fraud amounts to criminal acts as pointed out in the
complaint. Hence, there is no substance in the allegations
made by Petitioners that, they are not liable for the
offences alleged against them.
16] It is further submitted that, insofar as Petitioner
No.5 i.e. Mr. Satish Govindrao Bilapatte is concerned,
against said accused it has been specifically alleged in the
complaint that, he refused to supply the relevant
documents to the respondent No.2 i.e. the document, which
is fabricated by the main accused and he also refused to
accept the application tendered by respondent No.2 for
supply of relevant documents. As such, it is a very specific
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/01/2016 14:41:43 :::Bombay High Court
1003.2014 Cri.W.P.odt
13
allegation against the Petitioner No.5 that, he in collusion
with other accused supported and helped the main accused
to commit the criminal acts of fraud. In that view of the
matter, the contention of petitioner No.5 that, he joined the
services of Municipal Council, Ahmedpur in the Year 2009
has no relevance and meaning in the eyes of law.
17] It is further submitted that, it is a very specific
case of the respondent No.2 that, all the accused in the
complaint in collusion with each other have committed the
alleged offences. Hence, the role played by each of the
accused needs to be thoroughly investigated to find out the
truth. Hence, the contention raised by the Petitioners in the
present Writ Petition deserves no consideration, that too, at
the initial stage of investigation. Moreover, considering the
conduct of Petitioners thereby making recommendation
that, the accused Mr. Sayyad Pasha, who has committed
fraud on the system, shall not be prosecuted is nothing but
a criminal act of supporting the crime in collusion. Hence,
the Petitioners are equally liable and responsible for the
alleged crime, which is under investigation. Hence, Petition
may be rejected.
18] We have given careful consideration to the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
Respondent – State and the learned counsel appearing for
the Respondent No.2, with their able assistance, perused
the allegations in the First Information Report, grounds
taken in the Petition and also averments in affidavit in reply
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/01/2016 14:41:43 :::Bombay High Court
1003.2014 Cri.W.P.odt
14
filed by the Respondent No.2, the Respondent No.2 has not
disputed the fact that, Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are retired
from services of the Municipal Council, Ahmedpur. The fact
that, the Petitioner No.4 is appointed in the Ahmedpur
Municipal Council in the Year 2009 is also not disputed by
the Respondent No.2. It appears that, Respondent No.2
filed Private Complaint against the Petitioners and other coaccused
namely; Sayyad Pasha before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Ahmedpur, District Latur, being
complaint as M.A. No.98/2013, for the offences punishable
under Section 464, 465, 472, 420, 120 [3], 193, 203 r/w. 34
of Indian Penal Code. The Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Ahmedpur, District Latur, on 31st July, 2013 passed the
following order:
“Perused complaint, heard the Advocate
for complainant. The alleged offence are
cognizable hence this matter be sent to
P.I., Police Station, Ahmedpur for
investigation u/s. 156 [3] of Criminal
Procedure Code.”
Upon careful perusal of the order passed by the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedpur, it is abundantly
clear that, even brief reasons are not assigned by the
Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar and
others Vs. M.K. Aiyappa and another1
 held in para No.
11 that:
1. [2013] 10 SCC 705
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 17/01/2016 14:41:43 :::Bombay High Court
1003.2014 Cri.W.P.odt
15
Where jurisdiction is exercised on a
complaint filed in terms of Section 156 [3]
or Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate is
required to apply his mind, and in such a
case, the Special Judge / Magistrate
cannot refer the matter under Section 156
[3] CrPC for investigation against a public
servant without a valid sanction order
under Section 19 [1] of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 [PC Act]. The
application of mind by the Magistrate
should be reflected in the order. The
mere statement that he has gone through
the complaint, documents and heard the
complainant, as such, as reflected in the
order, will not be sufficient. After going
through the complaint, documents and
hearing the complainant, what weighed
with the Magistrate to order investigation
under Section 156 [3] CrPC, should be
reflected in the order, though a detailed
expression of his views is neither required
nor warranted. The Special Judge /
Magistrate in the present case, has stated
no reasons for ordering investigation.”

The Bombay High Court, in the case of State
of Maharashtra Vs. Shashikant s/o. Eknath Shinde2
held thus:

When the Magistrate passes order
directing investigation under Section 156
[3] of Cr.P.C., it is necessary that, prior to
doing so, he should apply his mind to the
case before him. Least that is expected of
the Magistrate, is to verify from the
averments of the complaint as to whether
the ingredients to constitute the offence/s
complained of have been made out or not.
As such the order under Section 156 [3] of
Cr.P.C., should depict the application of
mind. No doubt the Magistrate is not
expected to give elaborate Judgment at
that stage. However, the least expected
is that the order should depict application
of mind and as to how the complaint
discloses the ingredients to constitute the
offence complained of.
Therefore, order passed by the Magistrate is
not in conformity with the observations of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar & others Vs.
M.K.Aiyappa and another [supra] and the Bombay High
Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs.
Shashikant s/o. Eknath Shinde [supra].
 [Underlines added]
19] So far as allegation of preparation of forged
documents and signatures are concerned, those are against
accused No.1 Sayyad Pasha Sayyad Ali. Therefore,

according to the complainant, accused No.1 Sayyad Pasha
Sayyad Ali has committed a serious offence and cheated
the Government. He has also obtained employment in the
Municipal Council, Ahmedpur on the basis of forged
documents. According to the complainant, accused No.1
Sayyad Pasha Sayyad Ali has prepared forged Transfer
Certificate and Marks Memo. So far Baburao Nagnath
Gulave, Gunwant Sambappa Menkudale, Shaikh
Nijamoddini Azam and Satish Govindrao Bilapatte, who are
the Petitioners in the Petition are concerned, the allegations
is that, these accused knew about forged documents
prepared by the accused No.1 Sayyad Pasha Sayyad Ali,
and that on the basis of said documents he has secured
employment on Class-III post in Municipal Council,
Ahmedpur, even then no action is taken by them, and on
the contrary, Petitioners recommended to take lenient view
against said Sayyad Pasha, and also the Petitioner No.4 has
not performed his duty, and therefore, he is also
responsible for the alleged offences mentioned in the
complaint. It is further stated in the complaint that, present
Petitioners – original accused Nos. 2 to 5 have prepared the
false report and ensured that, applicant No.1 remains
unpunished for the serious offence of forgery committed by
him.
Upon careful reading of the allegations in the
First Information Report against the Petitioners in its
entirety, the complainant has stated that, the petitioners
knew about the preparation of the forged documents by the
complainant, however, they helped him by preparing report

and recommended that, no action should be taken against
him.
20] We have carefully considered the allegations in
the First Information Report, and we are of the opinion that,
even if the allegations in the complaint – First Information
Report are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make
out a case against the accused. The allegations made in the
F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the petitioners.
21] It is not in dispute that, Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2
after rendering services stood retired and other two
Petitioners are in the employment. It is not in dispute that,
the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Ahmedpur, by its order
dated 22.08.2008 has constituted a Committee consisting
Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 so as to enquire into the
allegations against the accused No.1 Sayyad Pasha Sayyad
Ali and they have submitted a detailed report to the Chief
Officer, Municipal Council, Ahmedpur, District Latur. It is
not in dispute that, as per the order of Chief Officer,
Municipal Council, Ahmedpur, Petitioners have enquired
into the matter and they found that Sayyad Pasha Sayyad
Ali i.e. Accused No.1 was, initially, appointed in the Year
1988 with the Ahmedpur Municipal Council as a labourer on
daily wages and afterwards he was promoted as Clerk in
the year 2002 and at the relevant time he has submitted

forged documents to the Scanning Committee to which the
Petitioners were not part of the said Committee. It appears
that, it was specifically stated in the report that, after
considering the documents it transpired that, Sayyad Pasha
Sayyad Ali at the time of appointing him as a Clerk
submitted forged documents. Petitioners have placed on
record copy of the report dated 24th October, 2008
submitted by them to the Chief Officer, Municipal Council,
Ahmedpur. The relevant portion from the said report,
which is relevant for the purpose of deciding the present
Petition is as under:
"सदर न ेमणकीचया व ु ेळी शी सययद पाशा सययद अली यांनी
जी कागदपते कायाालयास सादर क ेली तयानुसार आसथा
िवभागाने आमहा सादर केलेलया छयांिकत पतीवरन असे
िदसून य ेते की, शी सययद पाशा सययद अली िद .
२०/६/१९८८ च ेशाळा सोडलयाचेजी.प. हायसकूल वाशीम
यांची रिजसटर क . १८२५ िद. २०/६/१९८८ ची जी पत
सादर क ेलेली आहेतयामुळेशाळा सोडलयाचया पमाणपताचया
वरी [मी. ठी. लातूर जनरल सटोअस ा लातूर] असा उलेख
आहे. तसेच िदनांक २० /६/१९८८ रोजीच े सीट नंबर
२३६७५० रोल न ं. १३४७८० च े एस.एस.सी.चे माका
मेमोची झ ेरॉकसपत सादर केलेली आहे. जयानुसार सेवा
पुिसतकेचया प ेजला िनयकीचयाव ु ेळी शकिणक अहताा िह ै
एस.एस.सी. १९८६ असा उलेख आह े व सययद पाशा
सययद अली यांनी दाखल क ेलेले कागदपते हे १९८८ चे
िदसते. शी सदािशव भीमराव कराड यांनी क ेदीय मािहतीचा
अििकार अिििनयम २००५ अ तगं
ात िवभागीय सहाययक
सिचव नागपूर िवभागीय म ंडळ नागपूर व जी.प. माजी
शासकीय िवदालय, वाशीम यांचया कड ून पाप केलेले

कागदपत जी या कायाालयास सादर क ेलेले आहेत व शी
सययद पाशा सययद अली यांनी न ेमणकीचया व ु ेळी दाखल
केलेली कागदपत व तयानुसार नगरपिरषद ेनेसेवापुिसतकेमधये
नोद क ेलेलया नोदीची पाहणी व चौकशी केली असता वरील
सवा बाबीमधयेतफावत िदसून येते.”
"वरील स ंपूणा कागदपताचेअवलोकन, पाहणी / चौकशी केली
असता शी सययद पाशा सययद अली यांनी न .प. नेिदलेलया
नेमणकीचया व ु ेळी वसुली िलिपक या पदासाठी जी कागदपते,
टी.सी. व माक ा मेमोची पत सादर केलेली आहे ती खोटी
असलयाचे िदसून येते.”

22] Upon careful perusal of the afore mentioned
portion from the report submitted by the Committee and
also conclusions reached in the said report, the Committee
observed that, upon perusal of the entire documents placed
on record and from enquiry it is transpired that, documents
submitted by Sayyad Pasha Sayyad Ali at the time of his
appointment as recovery Clerk are forged. Therefore, it is
abundantly clear that, the Committee in no uncertain terms
observed that, the documents produced by the Accused No.
1 Sayyad Pasha Sayyad Ali at the time of his appointment
as Recovery Clerk in the Municipal Council, Ahmedpur were
forged. It appears that, the Petitioners were not part of the
earlier Scanning Committee. By any stretch of imagination
it cannot be said that, Petitioners have helped the accused
No.1 Sayyad Pasha Sayyad Ali in preparing forged and
fabricated documents. On the contrary, report submitted
by the Committee consisting present Petitioners has clearly
observed that, the documents submitted by the accused

No.1 Sayyad Pasha Sayyad Ali are false and fabricated.
However, it appears that, the Committee considered the
prayer of the accused No.1 Sayyad Pasha Sayyad Ali that,
lenient view may be taken since his wife, five children, aged
parents, in all 9 family members are dependent upon him
and he is ‘Karta’ of his family. Therefore, the Committee
recommended that, the Chief Officer, Municipal Council
may consider the hardship of the accused No.1 Sayyad
Pasha and may not file criminal complaint, however, can
revert him back from the post of Clerk to Class-IV.
The learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners has rightly contended that, the recommendation
of the Committee is mere opinion expressed and was not
binding upon Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Council,
Ahmedpur. It was only recommendation and the Petitioners
had no authority either to take decision or to file any
criminal complaint against the accused No.1 Sayyad Pasha.

23] In the light of the discussion herein above, in
our view, even if the allegations in the complaint – First
Information Report are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused. The
allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd
and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
Hence, Criminal Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clause ‘B’.

22
24] Rule made absolute to above extent. The
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
 Sd/- Sd/-
 [A.M.BADAR, J.] [S.S.SHINDE, J.]

Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment