Bombay High Court
Dr. Shaikh Salim Amin vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 6 January, 2020
Bench: T.V. Nalawade, M. G. Sewlikar
1 02- Cri. Appln. No. 2589-2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2589 OF 2019
Dr. Shaikh Salim Amin,
Age : 42 Years, Occ. Medical
Practitioner, R/o/ Kasat Colony,
Pathri Tq. Pathri Dist. Parbhani .. APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Pathari,
Dist. Parbhani.
2. Vishwas Balkishan Khogare,
Age : 57 Years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Panchayat samiti, Pathri,
Tq. Pathri Dist. Parbhani ... RESPONDENTS
....
Advocate for the applicants : Mr. S.J. Salunke
A.P.P for Respondent-State : Mr. M.M. Nerlikar
....
CORAM :T.V. NALAWADE AND
M. G. SEWLIKAR,JJ.
DATE : 06.01.2020.
ORDER :-
The application is fled for relief of quashing of FIR No. 167/2019 registered with Pathri Police station District Parbhani for the ofences punishable under Section 420, 468, 471 etc of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Both the sides are heard.
3. The crime is registered on the basis of report given by one Vishwas Khongare, Block Education Ofcer, Panchayat ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2020 23:35:19 ::: 2 02- Cri. Appln. No. 2589-2019.odt Samiti, Pathari. During the routine visits, it transpired to the ofcers of the education department that present applicant had opened a school without obtaining permission and he was running the school since June 2017. When they started making enquiry, applicant gave blunt reply and said that nobody can close his school. Report was given to the Education Ofce, (Primary) of the Zilla Parishad Parbhani. He directed to close the school and give report to police in respect of activity of the present applicant. Even attempt was made to see that, students of this unauthorized school were transferred to other school to see that no loss is caused to their academic year, but the applicant continued his activity by using false record of permission of the school. Not only the education department, but the students are deceived by the present applicant.
4. The papers of the investigation are produced and they include record like enquiry made and notices issued. Surprisingly, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of the G.R. dated 14.07.2017, of the State Government ( Education Department) action can be taken against the applicant only under the provisions of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, Clause 5 was read over by the learned counsel for the applicant in ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2020 23:35:19 ::: 3 02- Cri. Appln. No. 2589-2019.odt support of his contention. He submitted that under Section 18 of the Act, action can be taken like imposition of fne for such activities but the action of giving FIR to the police cannot be taken.
5. This Court has gone through the scheme of aforesaid Special Enactment. There is nothing in the Act to show that the provision of Section 18 supersedes general Provisions, like provisions of the Indian Penal Code. When a person like applicant opens School without authorization, permission and due to false representation made by him, the parents admit their children in the School, it can be said that applicant has deceived them. It is a question of career of such students and such incidents cannot be taken lightly. This Court holds that it cannot be said that the applicant has not committed ofences under aforesaid provisions of Indian Penal Code. Thus, no relief can be granted in favour of the applicant, in the result, the application stands dismissed.
(M.G.SEWLIKAR, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)
YSK/
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2020 23:35:19 :::