Bombay High Court
Anagha W/O Shashank Badge vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 17 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:4536-DB
70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.755 OF 2015
Anagha w/o Shashank Badge,
Age about 37 Years,
Occupation : Household work,
R/o. MiG-4, Hudco Colony,
Mangrulpir, District Washim. ..... APPLICANT
// VERSUS //
1. The State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Mangrulpir,
District Washim.
2. Ramdas Anandrao Dongre,
Age 60 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Ward No.3, Sonkhas,
Taluka Mangrulir, District Washim. .... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------
Mrs. Radhika Raskar, Advocate for the applicant.
Mrs. Sneha Dhote, APP for respondent No.1/State.
Mr. P. R. Agrawal, Advocate for respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.11 OF 2016
1. Swapnil Avinash Kale,
Aged about 40 years,
R/o. Post Nandgaon Khandeshwar,
District Amravati.
2. Sumeet Ashok Kadam,
Aged about 26 years,
At Post Tahsil Mangrulpir,
District Washim.
3. Dattatraya Jairam Kshirsagar,
Aged about 38 years,
At Post Tahsil Mangrulpir,
District Washim. ..... APPLICANTS
70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt
(2)
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer,
Mangrulpir, District Washim.
2. Ramdas Ananda Dongre,
Aged about 60 Years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Sonkhas Ward No.3,
Mangrulpir,
Tahsil Mangrulpir, District Washim. .... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------
Mrs. Radhika Raskar, Advocate for the applicant.
Mrs. Sneha Dhote, APP for respondent No.1/State.
Mr. P. R. Agrawal, Advocate for respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.768 OF 2015
1. Sau. Mangala Devidas Budhe,
Aged about 43 years,
R/o. Mahavir Colony,
Mangrulpir, District Washim.
2. Shri Laxman Parasramji Jawake,
Aged 61 Years,
R/o. Priyadarshani Colony,
Mangrulpir, District Washim. ..... APPLICANTS
// VERSUS //
1. The State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Mangrulpir,
District Washim.
2. Shri Ramdas Anandarao Dongre,
Aged about 60 Years,
R/o. Behind Afzalpurkar Vidyalaya,
Mangrulpir, District Washim.
3. Shri Sahebrao Vitthalrao Raut,
Aged about 61 Years,
70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt
(3)
R/o. Dhotra, Post Poti,
Taluka Mangrulpir, District Washim. .... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------
Mr. Anup J. Gilda, Advocate for the applicants.
Mrs. Sneha Dhote, APP for respondent No.1/State.
Mr. P. R. Agrawal, Advocate for respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
RESERVED ON : 25.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 17.03.2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
4. These applications are preferred by the applicants therein for quashing of the FIR in connection with Crime No.246/2015 registered with Police Station Mangrulpir, District Washim for the offence punishable under Sections 466, 467, 468, 471, 473, 481, 474, 409, 420, 181 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing charge sheet No.246/2015.
5. The Criminal Application (APL) No.755/2015 is filed by Anagha w/o Shashank Badge, who was serving in Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Vidyalaya, Dabha as a teacher and the applicants in Criminal Application (APL) No.11/2016 namely Swapnil Avinash Kale was Assistant Teacher, Sumeet Ashok Kadam was
70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt (4) Junior Clerk and Dattatraya Jairam Kshirsagar was Peon in the said school. The applicants in Criminal Application (APL) No.768/2015 Mangala Devidas Budhe and Laxman Jawake are President and Secretary of Savitribai Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal.
6. The complainant is the member of the Savitribai Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Mangrulpir. The Savitribai Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Mangrulpir is the Society through which one Mahatma Jyotba Phule Vidyalaya, Dabha, Taluka Mangrulpir, District Washim was run. The above said Society was recognized as per order dated 16.05.2006 as per order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Amravati. The FIR came to be lodged against the present applicants on an allegation that though the recognition was granted to the said school Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Vidyalaya, Dabha, but as there was another school in existence in village Dabha and therefore, the said school never started. Thus, the Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Vidyalaya, Dabha (hereinafter referred to as 'said school') is not in existence, there was no grant or approval for the said school. However, the present applicants and the other co-accused sent the proposal to transfer the said school from Dabha to Mangrulpir and forwarded to the Education Department on 15.11.2013 on the basis of false report and documents. The resolutions dated 06.11.2013 and 25.01.2010 in respect of transfer of the said
70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt (5) school from Dabha to Mangrulpir are also false and fabricated. The consent letters of the present applicants are also forged one. It is further alleged that applicant Anagha Badge shown that she worked at both places and obtained the monetary benefits and thereby cheated the Government. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime against the present applicants.
7. Heard learned counsel Mrs. Raskar for the applicant in Criminal Application (APL) No.755/2015. She submitted that the applicant is B.Sc. B.Ed. and there was an advertisement published by the Savitribai Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Mangrulpir on 02.06.2009 for filling the posts of Assistant Teacher. She applied for the said post and she came to be appointed as per order dated 24.06.2009 passed by the Secretary of the Savitribai Phule Society. Her appointment was for two years i.e. from 26.06.2009 to 26.07.2011. As per the appointment letter, she has joined her service on 26.06.2009 and her service came to be an end to the said Society on 27.06.2011. Thereafter, she was appointed in Zilla Parishad Secondary School at Mangrulpir on 16.10.2012 for the period of ten months till 30.04.2013. Accordingly, the experience certificate was issued to her by Headmaster, Zilla Parishad, Mangrulpir on 24.12.2014. Thereafter, she has not worked either with the Savitribai Phule Society or to the Zilla Parishad
70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt (6) School, Mangrulpir. Therefore, the question of signing any consent letter to transfer the school i.e. Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Vidyalaya, Dabha does not arise. The alleged consent letter was forged. It does not bear her signature. She has left the job of the said school on 27.06.2011 and thereafter, she has no concerned with the said school. Though, the school inspection report dated 11.04.2009 shows her signature as a Headmaster, but she was never appointed as a Headmaster, neither she was promoted on the post of Headmaster, therefore, this inspection report is also forged and without her knowledge that was prepared and her name and signature were also forged. It is submitted by her that there is no single document collected during the investigation to show that at any point of time, the present applicant was appointed as a Headmaster and she has prepared the said inspection report and she has not received any monetary gain by working in the said school at both places at Dabha and at Mangrulpir. She submitted that on the contrary, the appointment letter issued by the said Society to her specifically shows that her appointment was for the period 26.06.2009 to 27.06.2011 and thereafter, neither her services are extended nor she has been appointed subsequently thereafter. Thus, she has no concern with the inspection report or the consent letter which were prepared for transfer of the said school. Thus, there is no prima facie material to connect her
70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt (7) with the alleged offence, except the reference in the consent letter that is also not prepared by her. There is absolutely no material collected during the investigation to show her involvement either in the forgery or in getting monetary reliefs. In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed.
8. Learned counsel Mrs. Raskar, in Criminal Application (APL) No.11/2016 submitted that the applicants in the said application are shown to be served as Assistant Teacher, Junior Clerk and Peon respectively. They are the original accused Nos.11 to 13. Except their consent letters, there is nothing on record to show that they were serving in the said school as Assistant Teacher, Junior Clerk and Peon and received any monetary gain. In fact, they never received the consent letters. The consent letters are prepared by somebody else. There is absolutely no material to show that these letters are prepared by the present applicants. During the investigation, their specimen handwriting is also not obtained by the Investigating Agency. As far as the other investigation is concerned, which shows the involvement of the other co-accused. In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed and FIR deserves to be quashed against the present applicants.
9. In support of her contentions, she placed reliance on:
(i) State of Haryana and others Vs Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335,
70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt (8)
(ii) Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641,
(iii) Rikhab Birani and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 823,
10. Learned counsel Mr. Gilda submitted that the entire investigation papers nowhere discloses that it was the accused who have forged the consent letters or the proposal to transfer the school i.e. Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Vidyalaya. In fact, he submitted that the documents on record shows that permission was granted to start the said school at Dabha. Accordingly, it was started and thereafter the proposal was forwarded to transfer the said school from Dabha to Sonkhas, therefore the allegations levelled against the present accused persons are baseless and omnibus. The documents further shows that the body of the Directors namely Ghanshyam Shamsundar, Gajanan Budhe and others filed a change report before the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner. The present applicants Mangala Budhe and Laxman Jawake filed an intervention application for seeking permission for participating in proceeding, however, the same was rejected. He submitted that the allegation against the present applicants that they have prepared the forged inspection report as well as the forged consent letters but except the allegations, there are no documents to establish the same.
70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt (9)
11. In support of his contention he placed reliance on:
(i) Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited & others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690.
(ii) Suresh Lalchand Lulla and others Vs. Neela Sudhish Talpade and another reported in (1992) Mh.LJ. 1455.
(iii) Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & another reported (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1950.
12. Before entering into the merits of the present case, it is necessary to see the broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject i.e. quashing of the FIR, which is summaries in a catena of decisions.
13. It is not in dispute that the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct. The inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guidelines engrafted in such power that is to secure the ends of justice, and to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the aforementioned subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:
(1) Section 482 CrPC preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.
70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt (10) (2) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 CrPC. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-
compoundable.
(3) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.
(4) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.
(5) The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.
(6) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element
70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt (11) of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
(7) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
(8) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
(9) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (10) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (8) and (9) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.
14. In the light of the above broad principles, the facts of the present case in the light of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency required to be seen. It is alleged that the Savitribai Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, District Washim is an education society which runs the schools namely (a) Kalifnath
70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt (12) Maharaj Vidyalaya, Sawargaon, Taluka Mangrulpir, District Washim, (b) Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Vidyalaya, Kothari, Taluka Mangrulpir, District Washim and (c) Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Vidyalaya, Sonkhas (Shahapur), Taluka Mangrulpir, District Washim. The issue involved in the FIR is regarding forgery of the documents to transfer of the Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Vidyalaya, Dabha to Sonkhas (Shahpur) by transfer proposal dated 15.11.2013 which has been recognized by the State Government by permission dated 27.01.2014. On perusal of the investigation papers, it reveals that the allegation levelled against the present applicants and the other co-accused are that initially, the body of the Directors namely Ghanshyam Mahadevrao Shamsundar, Gajanan Kalnaji Budhe, Panchafulabai Mahadevrao Thakare, Mahadev Vitthalrao Raut, Sahebrao Vitthalrao Raut, Ramdas Anandraoji Dongre, Ramrao Wamanrao Raut, Shridharrao Abhiman Shamsundar and Shobha Vijayrao Kshirsagar filed a change report before the Assistant Charity Commission, Washim. The said change report was rejected by the Assistant Charity Commission, Washim. Thereafter, one fake body was prepared by showing names of Mangala Budhe as President, Deepak Govindrao Kshirsagar as Vice President, Laxman Parasramji Jawake as Secretary with other members. The said Mangala Budhe and Mohan Jawake filed an application before the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Washim for seeking permission
70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt (13) for participating in proceeding dated 29.04.2015. The said request for participation in proceeding was rejected by observing that they were never members of the said Society dated 01.07.2015. It is apparent from the said record that especially the order of the learned Charity Commissioner that this Court has directed to decide all the change reports of the said trust which has filed through its President Sau Mangala Budhe within time bound period.
15. The FIR came to be lodged on the basis of a report of non-applicant No.2 Ramdas Anandrao Dongre on an allegation that the present applicant Anagha in Criminal Application (APL) No.755/2015 was serving as Headmistress and other applicants were employees of the said Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Vidyalaya, Dabha. The applicants in Criminal Application (APL) No.768/2015 posed themselves as President, Vice President and officer bearers of the said Society prepared a forged proposal for transfer of the said school from Dabha to Mangrulpir. In fact, the said school is not in existence. The resolutions which are shown to be passed are also forged one. The consent letters which are issued by the present applicants, who were in fact not working in the said school, but shown to be working there and given their consent letters to transfer the said school and thereby cheated the Government. On perusal of the investigation papers, it reveals that as per the allegations, Mangala Budhe has
70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt (14) posed herself as President, Deepk Kshirsagar posed himself as Vice President and Laxman Parasram Jawake posed himself as Secretary with other members. They have prepared one proposal for transfer of the said school and the said proposal bears the signature of the applicant in Criminal Application (APL) No. 755/2015. The said proposal was forwarded along with the consent letter of the present applicant. The allegation further shows that the applicants Swapnil Kale, Sumeet Kadam and Dattatray Kshirsagar never appointed as employees of the said school. The applicant Anagha Badge was also never appointed as Headmistress of the said school, thereafter also they have given the consent letters to transfer the said school, which in fact is not existence.
16. On perusal of the investigation papers, admittedly, it reveals that in response to the advertisement dated 02.06.2009 in 'Dainik Sairan' applicant Angha Badge applied for the post of Assistant Teacher. Accordingly, on 23.06.2009 she was appointed by an appointment letter for the period of two years i.e. from 26.06.2009 to 27.06.2011. Her services in Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Vidyalaya, Dabha were only for two years. She has given a joining letter on 26.06.2009 which was accepted by the Secretary of the said Society. Thereafter, she was appointed in Zilla Parishad High School at Mangrulpir. The experience certificate given to her by the Headmaster of Zilla Parishad, High
70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt (15) School shows that she is served in the said Zilla Parishad High School, Mangrulpir from 16.10.2012 to 30.04.2013. Thus, as far as the investigation material collected, nowhere shows that after 27.06.2011 there was any connection between the applicant Anagha Badge and the school Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Vidyalaya, Dabha run through Savitribai Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal. Similarly, the applicants in the other applications are shown to be employees of the said school. However, the entire investigation papers nowhere shows that at any point of time, they were appointed in the said school and they have worked in the said school. Except mentioning of their names in the transfer proposal there is absolutely no record to show that the said consent letters are issued by them.
17. During investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the various statements of the witnesses including statement of Dinesh Vinayak Tarole, who was serving as a Deputy Education Officer at Washim Zilla Parishad. The statement of Kishor Ghanshyam Shyamsundar recorded on 07.10.2015 also shows that the said school was never in existence. He specifically stated that though the permission was granted for starting the said school, but other school in the name Late Gangaramji Kale was already in existence in the village Dabha and therefore, they have not started the said school in village Dabha though they have obtained the permissions. The
70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt (16) other statements of the witnesses shows that only one school is available in village Dabha, which is of one Ananta Kale. No school by name Mahatma Jyotiba Phule was in existence in the said village. Admittedly, there is a proposal of transfer of the said school. It is also undisputed that the applicant Anagha Badge was not in service when the said proposal was forwarded for transfer dated 15.11.2013. The other applicants were also not in service. As none of the investigation papers shows that either they were appointed or they have worked there, no attendance register is collected during the investigation to show that they worked there though there was no appointment in their names. Thus, except their signatures on the consent letters, there is absolutely no material to connect them with the alleged offence. The allegations of preparation of the forged inspection report is against the applicants Mangala Budhe and Laxman Jawake. Thus, considering the entire investigation papers collected during the investigation none of the documents shows that these consent letters are issued by the present applicants. Thus, there is no prima facie material to show that it was present applicants, who have prepared the forged consent letters or false consent letters.
18. In order to constitute the criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of IPC -
70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt (17) (1) There must be entrustment with person for property or dominion over the property, and
2) The person entrusted: -
a) dishonestly misappropriated or converted property to his own use, or
b) dishonestly used or disposed of the property or willfully suffers any other person so to do in violation of:
(i) any direction of law prescribing the method in which the trust is discharged; or
(ii) legal contract touching the discharge of trust.
19. Similarly, to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC, there has to be 1) deception of any person, either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or by omission; 2) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property, or 3) the consent that any persons shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit.
20. In both the aforesaid sections, mens rea i.e. intention to defraud or the dishonest intention must be present, and in the case of cheating it must be there from the very beginning or inception.
21. On the plain reading of the FIR fails to spell out any of the aforesaid ingredients noted above against the present applicants. If it is a case of the complainant that offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 of IPC,
70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt (18) punishable under Section 406 of IPC, is committed by the accused, then in the same breath it cannot be said that the accused has also committed the offence of cheating as defined and explained in Section 415 of the IPC, punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.
22. Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the judgment of Delhi Race Club (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Para No.39 which reads as under:
"39. Every act of breach of trust may not result in a penal offence of criminal breach of trust unless there is evidence of manipulating act of fraudulent misappropriation. An act of breach of trust involves a civil wrong in respect of which the person may seek his remedy for damages in civil courts but, any breach of trust with a mens rea, gives rise to a criminal prosecution as well. It has been held in Hari Prasad Chamaria Vs.Bishun Kumar Surekha & Ors., reported in (1973) 2 SCC 823 as under:
"4. We have heard Mr. Maheshwari on behalf of the appellant and are of the opinion that no case has been made out against the respondents under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860. For the purpose of the present appeal, we would assume that the various allegations of fact which have been made in the complaint by the appellant are correct. Even after making that allowance, we find that the complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence on the part of the respondents under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860. There is nothing in the complaint to show that the respondent had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time the appellant parted with Rs. 35.000/-. There is also nothing to indicate that the respondents induced the appellant to pay them Rs. 35,000/- by deceiving him. It is further not the case of the appellant that a
70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt (19) representation was made by the respondents to him at or before the time he paid the money to them and that at the time the representation was made, the respondents knew the same to be false. The fact that the respondents subsequently did not abide by their commitment that they would show the appellant to be the proprietor of Drang Transport Corporation and would also render accounts to him in the month of December might create civil liability for them, but this fact would not be sufficient to fasten criminal liability on the respondents for the offence of cheating."
23. To put it in other words, the case of cheating and dishonest intention starts with the very inception of the transaction. But in the case of criminal breach of trust, a person who comes into possession of the movable property and receives it legally, but illegally retains it or converts it to his own use against the terms of the contract, then the question is, in a case like this, whether the retention is with dishonest intention or not, whether the retention involves criminal breach of trust or only a civil liability would depend upon the facts of each case.
24. Thus, there is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making a false or misleading representation i.e., since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted to the property, and he dishonestly misappropriated the same. Whereas, in case of
70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt (20) cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver any property. In such a situation, both the offences cannot co-exist simultaneously.
25. This aspect is further considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rikhab Birani referred by the learned counsel for the applicants and by referring the catena of decisions it is held that both the offences cannot co-exist simultaneously.
26. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case as observed earlier that when the complainant has come with the case that the applicants have the false consent letters. The investigation papers itself shows that applicant Anagha Badge never worked in the said school after 27.06.2011. There is no material to show that applicants in Criminal Application (APL) No.11/2016 were appointed there, they worked there and they received any monetary gain. Though it is alleged by the prosecution that Anagha Badge worked in both schools and received monetary gain, but it is not substantiated by any documentary evidence. As far as Mangala Budhe and Laxman Jawake are concerned, the investigation papers shows their involvement in preparation of proposal of transfer of school which was not in existence and preparation of consent letter in the name of applicants who were not working in the school is
70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt (21) apparent. The continuance of the above said proceedings against the present applicants in Criminal Application (APL) Nos.755/2015 and Criminal Application (APL) No.11/2016 in the absence of any material to connect them with the alleged offence would be an abuse of the process of law. Even accepting the case as it is, in its entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence against the those applicants as both the contentions of the complainant that they have committed the criminal breach of trust and also deceived cannot co-exist and therefore, if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue against the applicants, the same will be abuse of process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.
27. The prima facie case made out against the applicants Mangala Budhe and Laxman Jawake in Criminal Application (APL) No.768/2015.
28. The Investigating Officer has recorded the various statements of the witnesses which shows that the said school was never in existence. The statement further shows that the permission was granted for starting Mahatma Phule Vidyalaya at Dabha, but the other school was already in existence, therefore, the said school was not started in village Dabha. No school by name Mahatma Jyotiba Phule was in existence in the said village. The present applicants Mangala Budhe and Laxman Jawake
70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt (22) prepared a proposal for transfer of the school when the school is not in existence. They have also shown the applicants Swapnil Kale, Sumeet Kadam and Dattatraya Kshirsagar as the employees of the said school, when there was no appointment order shows their intention since inception. The entire investigation papers discloses their involvement in preparation of the forged documents and therefore, the application in respect of the applicants Mangala Budhe and Laxman Jawake deserves to be rejected.
29. In the case of Achin Gupta vs The State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 759, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"19. It is now well settled that the power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only where such exercise is justified by the tests laid down in the Section itself. It is also well settled that Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. does not confer any new power on the High Court but only saves the inherent power, which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Criminal Procedure Code. There are three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
20. The investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers, whose powers in that field are unfettered, so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offence is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the
70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt (23) provisions under Chapter XII Cr.PC. While exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC. The court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. As noted above, the inherent jurisdiction under the section, although wide, yet should be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. The authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has the power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers, the court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that the initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto."
30. In the case of Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., 2013(11) SCC 673, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.12 has observed as under:-
"12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or
70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt (24) not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court."
31. In the present case, the ingredients of cheating as defined under Section 415 of IPC and criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of IPC are not made out even accepting the allegations in the complaint at their face value against the applicants namely Swapnil Avinash Kale, Sumeet Ashok Kadam, Dattatraya Jairam Kshirsagar. The facts and the circumstances of the case further shows that the foundation fact that they were connected with the said Society and the said school itself is not established from the investigation papers and therefore, Criminal Application (APL) Nos. 755/2015 and 11/2016 deserve to be allowed. However, involvement of applicants Mangala Budhe and Laxman Jawake reveals in preparing forged proposal, inspection report and consent letters. Therefore, the prayer of applicants in Criminal Application (APL) No.768/2015 is rejected.
70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt (25)
32. For all above these reasons, the Criminal Application (APL) Nos.755/2015 and 11/2016 deserve to be allowed and hence, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Application (APL) Nos. 755/2015, 11/2016 are allowed.
(ii) The FIR in connection with Crime No.246/2015 registered with Police Station Mangrulpir, District Washim for the offence punishable under Sections 466, 467, 468, 471, 473, 481, 474, 409, 420, 181 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceeding arising out of the same charge sheet bearing No.246/2015, are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of the present applicants in Criminal Application (APL) Nos.755/2015 and 11/2016.
(iii) The prayer of the applicants in Criminal Application (APL) No.768/2015 is hereby rejected.
33. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
1. The Criminal Application (APL) No.768/2015 was filed for quashing of the FIR. By judgment dated 17.03.2026, the application is rejected.
70.apl.755.2015 & 11.2026&768.2015.Judgment.odt (26)
2. Learned counsel Mr. Gilda for the applicants seeks stay to the implementation and execution of this order and seeks continuation of the interim order.
3. Now, the charge sheet is already filed. Therefore, as far as coercive action is concerned, nothing remains. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that they have to approach for seeking bail as far as applicants in Criminal Application (APL) No.768/2015 are concerned and therefore, he seeks two weeks continuation of the said order.
4. Hence, investigating agency shall not take any coercive action against applicant Mangala Budhe and Laxman Jawake for two weeks.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) Sarkate.
Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 18/03/2026 18:34:16