Bombay High Court
Abdul Rafique Sheikh Munaf And Another vs State Of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. P.S. City ... on 6 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:4118-DB
Judgment
28 apl304.20
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL NO.304 OF 2020
1. Abdul Rafique Sheikh Munaf,
aged about 48 years, occupation:
agriculturist.
2. Nasreen Bano Abdul Rafique,
aged about 47 years, occupation:
service,
both r/o Rehmat Nagar,
Amravati, district Amravati. ..... Applicants.
:: V E R S U S ::
1. State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer, Police
Station, City Kotwal, Amravati,
district Amravati.
2. Mohd.Sultan Mohd.Issak, aged
about 62 years, occupation retired,
r/o Fatima Colony, near Gulam
Nabi School, Murtizapur, tahsil
Murtizapur, district Akola. ..... Non-applicants.
================================
Shri Harish Dangre, Counsel with Shri P.B.Patil and Shri
V.B.Rathi, Advocates for Applicants.
Shri Nikhil Joshi, APP for NA No.1/State.
Shri Z.Z.Haq, Counsel for NA No.2.
================================
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATE : 06/03/2026
.....2/-
Judgment
28 apl304.20
2
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Admit. Heard finally by consent.
2. By this application, applicants are seeking quashing of FIR in connection with Crime No.374/2019 registered with the non-applicant No.1 police station for offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, and 471 read with 34 of the IPC and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing RCC No.208/2023.
3. The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged by non-applicant No.2 (the complainant) on 7.9.2019 on allegations that the present applicants after making forged signatures on the notice book, proceeding, and resignation letter have played fraud and used such documents in change report bearing No.42/2014 filed before the Charity Commissioner, Amravati. It was allegation of the complainant that he was founder member of the Society and subsequently .....3/-
Judgment 28 apl304.20 3 was elected on the post of Joint Secretary. The present applicants have filed change report before the Charity Commissioner, Amravati wherein they have used documents signed by the non-applicant No.2 which is forged one. One such document is resignation letter of the complainant wherein he has not signed, but his forged signature is there and with the help of same, the matter was compromised before the Charity Commissioner, Amravati.
On the basis of the said report, the crime is registered against the present applicants.
4. Learned counsel for the present applicants submitted that applicant No.1 is the President of "Tajuddin Baba Bahuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Bhatkuli, District Amravati"
and the non-applicant No.2 is the Secretary of the said Society.
He submitted that even accepting the allegations as it is, no offence is made out against the present applicants as .....4/-
Judgment 28 apl304.20 4 there is no specific allegation that the present applicants have made forged signatures of the complainant.
He submitted that as far as applicant No.2 is concerned, none of statements discloses any role attributing to her.
He invited my attention towards various statements of witnesses and submitted that in all statements there are no references either of applicant No.1 or applicant No.2.
He submitted that statements of witnesses, who are members of the said Society, do not show that signatures are obtained by the applicant No.1 or applicant No.2.
He also invited my attention towards various documents filed before the Charity Commissioner, Amravati wherein also the presenting person is shown to be applicant No.1.
.....5/-
Judgment 28 apl304.20 5 As far as applicant No.2 is concerned, there is absolutely no material to connect her with the alleged offence. He submitted that considering the entire investigation papers, except bare statement that she was also involved in the said crime, there is no specific role attributed to her and thus no prima facie case is made out against applicants.
In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed.
5. Learned APP for the State has strongly opposed the said contentions and submitted that applicant No.2 is Secretary of the said Society and statements of witnesses as well as documents on record are sufficient to show involvement of the present applicants in the alleged offence. In view of that, the application deserves to be rejected.
6. Learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2 submitted that he has already filed an application for further investigation and if the trial court allows the said application, .....6/-
Judgment 28 apl304.20 6 some material may come against the present applicants and, therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.
7. On hearing both sides and perusing the entire material on record, it reveals that the entire case revolves around forgery of documents filed before the Charity Commissioner, Amravati.
8. Perusal of the said documents reveals that all these documents filed before the Charity Commissioner, Amravati bears signatures of applicant No.1.
9. As far as applicant No.2 is concerned, neither documents nor statements of witnesses discloses that either she was present while producing or presenting the application i.e. change report or while presenting the application for settlement on the basis of the resignation wherein the alleged forged signatures were made. The statements of witnesses also nowhere disclose at any point of time that the proceeding book was brought by applicant No.2 for their signatures.
.....7/-
Judgment 28 apl304.20 7 The proceeding book is also seized from the possession of applicant No.1.
Thus, considering the entire material collected during the investigation, admittedly, no prima facie case is made out against applicant No.2.
10. As far as applicant No.1 is concerned, admittedly, a prima facie case is made out from the entire investigation papers.
11. The law relating to quashing of FIRs was explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and ors vs. Bhajan Lal and ors, reported in 1992 Supplementary (1) SCC 335 wherein principles have been laid down which are required to be considered while considering applications for quashing of the FIRs, which read as under:
"(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their .....8/-
Judgment 28 apl304.20 8 entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investi- gation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR 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;
.....9/-
Judgment 28 apl304.20 9
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
12. In view of above parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the application deserves to be allowed partly. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER (1) The criminal application is allowed partly. (2) The criminal application is allowed in respect of applicant No.2. FIR in connection with Crime No.374/2019 registered with the non-applicant No.1 police station for offences under .....10/-
Judgment 28 apl304.20 10 Sections 420, 465, 468, and 471 read with 34 of the IPC and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing RCC No.208/2023 are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of applicant No.2 Nasreen Bano Abdul Rafique. (3) The criminal application is rejected in respect of applicant No.1.
(4) The trial court shall not be influenced by the observations made in this court in respect of applicant No.1.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) !! BrWankhede !! Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../- Date: 12/03/2026 10:04:23