Sarjerao S/O. Gulabrao Dhamdhere vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 8 May, 2020

2. The appellant is apprehending the arrest in Crime No.282 of

2019 registered with Ghargaon Police Station, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar

for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code

and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act. The first

information report has been lodged by present respondent No.2.

3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. L. S. Mahajan for appellant, learned

APP Mr. P. K. Lakhotia for respondent No.1-State and learned Advocate Mr. S.

B. Ghatol Patil for respondent No.2. Perused the affidavit-in-reply along with

documents.

4. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellant that

the learned Special Judge failed to consider the enmity between the applicant

and the informant. A complaint application has been filed by the present

appellant in respect of the property dispute. It was contended that there is a

Big house (Wada) of the forefathers of the appellant. It is now in dilapidated

condition. There was certain space behind the said Wada. When the family

-2-
::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 12:49:55 :::
2-Apeal-6-2020.odt

of respondent No.2 started levelling the land behind the Wada, it was

objected by the appellant so also a written complaint was filed on 08-09-

2015 to the Grampanchayat. However, the Grampanchayat with some

political motive had made entries in the name of the family of respondent

No.2. Therefore, a complaint application was then made by him to the

Collector. The informant got annoyed with the same and, in fact, application

under Section 14-G of the Maharashtra Grampanchayat Act was filed by the

appellant against the Sarpanch, Deputy Sarpanch and the Gram Sewak of the

Grampanchayat. It was stated that all of them together had shown the open

space belonging to the appellant in the name of one Maruti Karbhari

Mundhe, Suresh Karbhari Mundhe and Pramod Rambhau Mundhe. It is

further stated that present respondent No.2 is the near friend of said Mundhe

family and by taking advantage of the caste of the informant false complaint

has been lodged and those two persons from Mundhe family whose name has

been taken in the application before Collector by the appellant are shown to

be the eye witnesses to the incident. In fact, these two witnesses by name

Mundhe were not even present when the incident had taken place.

Therefore, when the FIR is filed with mala fide intention, the learned Special

Judge ought not to have considered that there is bar for entertaining pre-

arrest bail applications in view of Section 18-A of the Atrocities Act.

-3-
::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 12:49:55 :::

Sheetal Devang Shah vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 8 May, 2020

1 By the aforesaid interim application and criminal application,

the applicant/petitioner, who appears in-person has made several

grievances as against the Investigating officer-ACP Ms. Asmita Bhosale,

amongst other grievances. In an earlier petition filed by the petitioner i.e.

Writ Petition No. 1135/2019, this Court having considered the allegations

and counter allegations levelled by the petitioner therein i.e. Sheetal Shah,

was of the view that the interest of justice would be served if the petition

i.e. Writ Petition No. 1135/2019 is treated as representation to the

Commissioner of Police and as such directed the Commissioner of Police

to take cognizance of the said writ petition within four weeks from the date

SQ Pathan 1/3
wp.3402.19.doc

of the order. Since multiple reliefs are sought in the petition, in particular,

transfer of investigation of all five FIRs registered with different police

stations, this Court directed that the investigation of all the five FIRs be

assigned to a responsible high ranking officer, not below the rank of A.C.P

and on such officer being designated to investigate, the petitioner was

directed to cooperate with the said investigation. The said order was

passed on 4th June 2019 and was disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

2 The grievance of the applicant/petitioner in both the aforesaid

applications is that there is a threat to her life and to her children and that

the Investigating Officer Ms. Asmita Bhosale and other Officers are not

investigating the matter in accordance with law. The petitioner has made

several allegations of corruption as against some of the officers. According

to her, the said investigation in the five FIRs is not being conducted in a

fair and impartial manner.

Jalinder Murlidhar Naik And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 8 May, 2020

(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station

as and when called;

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or

attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any

person concerned with the case.

SQ Pathan 3/4

::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 06:03:51 :::
Apeal.196.20.doc

8 Stand over to 3rd July 2020.

9 All concerned to act on the copy of this order, digitally signed

Parwati @ Parubai Balu Patil And … vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 8 May, 2020

(ii) The applicants to deposit the fine amount in the trial Court

within eight weeks from today;

SQ Pathan 2/3

::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 06:03:59 :::
LD.VC.OCR.25.20.doc

(iii) The applicants shall report to the trial Court once in six

months, till the aforesaid appeal is finally heard and decided.

6 The Interim Application is accordingly disposed of.

7 All concerned to act on the copy of this order, digitally signed

by the Senior Private Secretary.

Shivappa Nagappa Lade (Dead) Thr … vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 8 May, 2020

2. The present respondents have filed First Appeal No.1909 of

2019 challenging the Judgment and award in land acquisition

proceedings i.e. Land Acquisition Reference No.122 of 2011, decided

by learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga on 02-08-

2014. The appeal is admitted and it is pending before this Court for

its turn for final hearing. They have also filed an application for stay

::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 12:49:30 :::
3 CriApln 90-2020

to the execution of the award and a conditional order was passed by

this Court. The appellant therein were directed to deposit the entire

decreetal amount awarded by the Reference Court along with

interest accrued within six weeks from the date of the order i.e. 22-

06-2018. After the amount was deposited by the appellants therein,

the present applicants had filed Application No.7291 of 2019 for

withdrawal of the amount. After hearing the parties, this Court

passed following order : –

Vandana Vasant Deore vs Satish Atmaram Deore on 8 May, 2020

PER COURT :

1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor, as well as learned advocate Mr. S. S. Ladda who is

intervening and appearing for the original informant.

2. It will not be out of place to mention here that, this Court by

order dated 15-04-2020 has directed that no coercive action shall be

taken against the applicants for a period of three weeks or till such

time the State Government withdraws the lockdown in its entirety,

whichever is earlier. Now the lockdown has not yet ended and,

therefore, the learned advocate for the applicants seeks extension of

the said order. The applications have been mainly objected by the

learned advocate for the informant who submits that, the wives of

the present applicants had approached this Court also for pre-arrest

bail and it was not granted. Then they had approached Hon’ble

Supreme Court on 05-02-2020. The said application was rejected

and the petitioners therein were directed to surrender within a

period of three months. The learned advocate for informant had

::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 12:52:51 :::
3 ABA369-2020 with 370-2020

submitted that, till today there is no compliance of the said order by

those petitioners. In fact, the role of those petitioners is lesser than

the present applicants yet the protection is granted to the

applicants, and now by taking disadvantage of the said order, the

applicants are trying to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution

as well as trying to drive the informant is under fear.

Dr. Abdul Gaffar Quadri And Anr vs Munawar Ahmed S/O. Naem Ahmed And … on 8 May, 2020

3 Present respondent No.1 is the original complainant, who has

filed private complaint bearing R.C.C. No.106/2015 before learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Khultabad, Dist. Aurangabad. It was filed against five

persons contending that they have committed offence punishable under

Section 467, 468, 469, 409, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code.

4 Brief facts narrated in the complaint are, that the original

accused No.3 is the President of institution by name Anjuman Eshat-e-Taleem

and accused No.4 is the Secretary. The said institution is registered as Trust

under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act. It receives 100% grants from the

Government to run college by name Maulana Azad Higher Secondary School

at Khultabad. Accused No.1 is serving as Assistant Teacher since 2011 and

::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 11:32:08 :::
4 Cri.WP_932_2019+1_Jd

prior to that he was serving as Shikshan Sevak in the subject of Phychology

and Sociology. Accused No.2 is the Headmistress of the said school since

2008. Original accused No.5 was then Deputy Director of Education. It is

contended that when accused No.1 was in service, he has completed the

course of M.A. 1st part in Psychology for the academic year of 2008-09 from

Vivekanand College, Aurangabad. His attendance on the Transfer Certificate

of said college is said to be 75%. Thereafter, for the year 2010-11 he has

completed the M.A. 2nd part in Psychology as a regular student of the said

college. The college timing is stated to be 4.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. and for

2010-11 it is from 12.00 noon to 5.40 p.m.. The Institution record shows

that during the said period, he has taken only 8 days Earned Leave. This

shows that accused No. 1, in conspiracy with the accused Nos.1 to 4, was

only signing the attendance register and taking the salary/honorarium of

Rs.9,000/- per month, amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- for two years. It is stated

that in the past also there were instances in the said college run by the

accused, in respect of payments made towards salary without candidate

putting any work. That amount has been recovered by the Government. All

those persons had come to this Court, however, those petitions were rejected

and criminal proceedings are pending against two of them. The complainant

had given a complaint application on 18.01.2012 to the Deputy Director of

Education, Aurangabad. He has passed an order on 11.06.2012. It was

::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 11:32:08 :::
5 Cri.WP_932_2019+1_Jd

directed that the accused No.1 should deposit the entire amount, which he

has received towards honorarium with the Government. Further directions

were given to take action under Rule 28(5) of Maharashtra Private Schools

(Terms of Service) Rules, 1981. It was also stated in the said order that since

the accused No.1 has derelicted from duty, inquiry be held and after the

report is received then only the further action of continuation in his service

would be taken. Therefore, the continuation was not done and as the salary

was not given, accused No.1 staged agitation from 09.07.2012 in front of the

office of Deputy Director of Education. He was advised on 12.07.2012 to file

an appeal and he was then prevented from continuing the agitation. The

appeal was filed by him and stay was granted to the order passed. In view of

the said stay the accused No.1 was given continuation of service. No

opportunity was given to the complainant to put forth his say by the Director

of Education when stay was granted. The complainant thereafter filed writ

petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No.6756 of 2012. In that

petition the Director of Education was directed to file affidavit. Accordingly,

affidavit was filed on 24.04.2013. It was specifically stated that on

17.04.2013 further order has been passed that the stay has been vacated and

the order passed by Deputy Director of Education Aurangabad on 11.06.2012

is confirmed. In view of the said contentions in the writ petition, the writ

petition came to be rejected. In the meantime, accused No.5 took charge as

::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 11:32:08 :::
6 Cri.WP_932_2019+1_Jd

Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad and he gave letter on 24.06.2013,

thereby cancelling the confirmation to the service given to accused No.1.

Accused Nos.2 to 4 had not taken any steps for inquiry in view of the order

dated 11.06.2012. A false report was submitted to the Deputy Director of

Education. Accused No.1 has not even deposited the amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- which he had taken as honorarium for two years. Yet, after

accepting the false report the accused No.5 has continued the services of

accused No.1 by letter dated 26.08.2013. It has been submitted that all the

accused persons with common intention with each other prepared false

report, prepared false attendance register, pay bills and other documents,

thereby all of them have cheated the Government as well as the students, and

therefore, he says that offence has been committed by all the accused

persons. He, therefore, prayed for issuing process and punishing the accused

persons.

Satish Atmaram Deore vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 May, 2020

PER COURT :

1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor, as well as learned advocate Mr. S. S. Ladda who is

intervening and appearing for the original informant.

2. It will not be out of place to mention here that, this Court by

order dated 15-04-2020 has directed that no coercive action shall be

taken against the applicants for a period of three weeks or till such

time the State Government withdraws the lockdown in its entirety,

whichever is earlier. Now the lockdown has not yet ended and,

therefore, the learned advocate for the applicants seeks extension of

the said order. The applications have been mainly objected by the

learned advocate for the informant who submits that, the wives of

the present applicants had approached this Court also for pre-arrest

bail and it was not granted. Then they had approached Hon’ble

Supreme Court on 05-02-2020. The said application was rejected

and the petitioners therein were directed to surrender within a

period of three months. The learned advocate for informant had

::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 12:52:40 :::
3 ABA369-2020 with 370-2020

submitted that, till today there is no compliance of the said order by

those petitioners. In fact, the role of those petitioners is lesser than

the present applicants yet the protection is granted to the

applicants, and now by taking disadvantage of the said order, the

applicants are trying to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution

as well as trying to drive the informant is under fear.

Asma Roohi Quadri vs Munawar Ahmed S/O. Naem Ahmed And … on 8 May, 2020

3 Present respondent No.1 is the original complainant, who has

filed private complaint bearing R.C.C. No.106/2015 before learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Khultabad, Dist. Aurangabad. It was filed against five

persons contending that they have committed offence punishable under

Section 467, 468, 469, 409, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code.

4 Brief facts narrated in the complaint are, that the original

accused No.3 is the President of institution by name Anjuman Eshat-e-Taleem

and accused No.4 is the Secretary. The said institution is registered as Trust

under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act. It receives 100% grants from the

Government to run college by name Maulana Azad Higher Secondary School

at Khultabad. Accused No.1 is serving as Assistant Teacher since 2011 and

::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 11:32:24 :::
4 Cri.WP_932_2019+1_Jd

prior to that he was serving as Shikshan Sevak in the subject of Phychology

and Sociology. Accused No.2 is the Headmistress of the said school since

2008. Original accused No.5 was then Deputy Director of Education. It is

contended that when accused No.1 was in service, he has completed the

course of M.A. 1st part in Psychology for the academic year of 2008-09 from

Vivekanand College, Aurangabad. His attendance on the Transfer Certificate

of said college is said to be 75%. Thereafter, for the year 2010-11 he has

completed the M.A. 2nd part in Psychology as a regular student of the said

college. The college timing is stated to be 4.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. and for

2010-11 it is from 12.00 noon to 5.40 p.m.. The Institution record shows

that during the said period, he has taken only 8 days Earned Leave. This

shows that accused No. 1, in conspiracy with the accused Nos.1 to 4, was

only signing the attendance register and taking the salary/honorarium of

Rs.9,000/- per month, amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- for two years. It is stated

that in the past also there were instances in the said college run by the

accused, in respect of payments made towards salary without candidate

putting any work. That amount has been recovered by the Government. All

those persons had come to this Court, however, those petitions were rejected

and criminal proceedings are pending against two of them. The complainant

had given a complaint application on 18.01.2012 to the Deputy Director of

Education, Aurangabad. He has passed an order on 11.06.2012. It was

::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 11:32:24 :::
5 Cri.WP_932_2019+1_Jd

directed that the accused No.1 should deposit the entire amount, which he

has received towards honorarium with the Government. Further directions

were given to take action under Rule 28(5) of Maharashtra Private Schools

(Terms of Service) Rules, 1981. It was also stated in the said order that since

the accused No.1 has derelicted from duty, inquiry be held and after the

report is received then only the further action of continuation in his service

would be taken. Therefore, the continuation was not done and as the salary

was not given, accused No.1 staged agitation from 09.07.2012 in front of the

office of Deputy Director of Education. He was advised on 12.07.2012 to file

an appeal and he was then prevented from continuing the agitation. The

appeal was filed by him and stay was granted to the order passed. In view of

the said stay the accused No.1 was given continuation of service. No

opportunity was given to the complainant to put forth his say by the Director

of Education when stay was granted. The complainant thereafter filed writ

petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No.6756 of 2012. In that

petition the Director of Education was directed to file affidavit. Accordingly,

affidavit was filed on 24.04.2013. It was specifically stated that on

17.04.2013 further order has been passed that the stay has been vacated and

the order passed by Deputy Director of Education Aurangabad on 11.06.2012

is confirmed. In view of the said contentions in the writ petition, the writ

petition came to be rejected. In the meantime, accused No.5 took charge as

::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 11:32:24 :::
6 Cri.WP_932_2019+1_Jd

Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad and he gave letter on 24.06.2013,

thereby cancelling the confirmation to the service given to accused No.1.

Accused Nos.2 to 4 had not taken any steps for inquiry in view of the order

dated 11.06.2012. A false report was submitted to the Deputy Director of

Education. Accused No.1 has not even deposited the amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- which he had taken as honorarium for two years. Yet, after

accepting the false report the accused No.5 has continued the services of

accused No.1 by letter dated 26.08.2013. It has been submitted that all the

accused persons with common intention with each other prepared false

report, prepared false attendance register, pay bills and other documents,

thereby all of them have cheated the Government as well as the students, and

therefore, he says that offence has been committed by all the accused

persons. He, therefore, prayed for issuing process and punishing the accused

persons.

Vandana Vasant Deore vs Narendra Atmaram Deore Ana Anr on 8 May, 2020

PER COURT :

1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor, as well as learned advocate Mr. S. S. Ladda who is

intervening and appearing for the original informant.

2. It will not be out of place to mention here that, this Court by

order dated 15-04-2020 has directed that no coercive action shall be

taken against the applicants for a period of three weeks or till such

time the State Government withdraws the lockdown in its entirety,

whichever is earlier. Now the lockdown has not yet ended and,

therefore, the learned advocate for the applicants seeks extension of

the said order. The applications have been mainly objected by the

learned advocate for the informant who submits that, the wives of

the present applicants had approached this Court also for pre-arrest

bail and it was not granted. Then they had approached Hon’ble

Supreme Court on 05-02-2020. The said application was rejected

and the petitioners therein were directed to surrender within a

period of three months. The learned advocate for informant had

::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 12:53:02 :::
3 ABA369-2020 with 370-2020

submitted that, till today there is no compliance of the said order by

those petitioners. In fact, the role of those petitioners is lesser than

the present applicants yet the protection is granted to the

applicants, and now by taking disadvantage of the said order, the

applicants are trying to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution

as well as trying to drive the informant is under fear.