Bombay High Court
Shrikant Tarachand Diwate vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 19 June, 2025
Author: Madhav J. Jamdar
Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar
2025:BHC-AS:26425
902-APL-568-2012.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.568 OF 2012
Shrikant Tarachand Diwate ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
_______________________________________________________________
Ms. Anita A. Agarwal a/w Ms. Ashwini B. Jadhav, for the Applicant.
Mr. Prathamesh Deshpande, for the Respondent No.2.
Mr. D. J. Haldankar, APP for the Respondent-State.
_______________________________________________________________
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED: 19th JUNE 2025
JUDGMENT.:
1. Heard Ms. Anita Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicant, Mr. Prathamesh Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for
the Respondent No.2 and Mr. D. J. Haldankar, learned APP for the
Respondent-State.
2. By the present Criminal Application, filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC“) the Applicant is
challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 11 th January,
2012 issuing process against the Applicant passed by the learned JMFC,
Junnar in Criminal Case No.125 of 2008 renumbered as R.C.C. No.7 of
2012. The Applicant is also praying that the consequential actions taken
including filing of charge-sheet be quashed and set aside.
3. It is the submission of Ms. Aagarwal, learned Counsel appearing
for the Applicant that the entire action taken is for the malafide
Vaibhav Page No. 1
::: Uploaded on – 02/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 08:34:41 :::
902-APL-568-2012.doc
purpose. It is her submission that, on several occasions, the Applicant
has been removed from the service of the Respondent No.2 and
thereafter he has been directed by the Court to be reinstated and every
time he has been denied the relief of reinstatement as immediately the
Applicant has been again removed from the service. It is submitted that,
finally, when the Applicant was reinstated he had attained age of
superannuation and therefore direction was issued to pay him all
retirement benefits as well as pension. It is her submission that to deny
the said relief false criminal case has been lodged against the Applicant.
Ms. Agarwal, learned Counsel submits that the present age of the
Applicant is 74 years. She therefore submits that the relief sought in the
Application be granted as the criminal case is filed for the malafide and
oblique purpose.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing
for the Respondent No.2, submitted that he has instructions that the
Respondent No.2-Subhash Vidya Mandir will not be pursuing the said
criminal case.
5. Mr. Haldankar, learned APP states that as the learned Single
Judge has granted stay to the Criminal proceedings, the Criminal
proceedings have not proceeded thereafter.
6. Before considering the contention of the parties on merits, the
Applicant has filed a detailed synopsis along with the Criminal
Vaibhav Page No. 2
::: Uploaded on – 02/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 08:34:41 :::
902-APL-568-2012.doc
Application. The said synopsis reads as under:-
“1. The Petitioner is an Indian Inhabitant of District Pune
residing at the address mentioned in the cause title.
2. The Respondent No. 1 is a State of Maharashtra; the
Respondent No. 2 is an Educational Institution
registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860
and also under the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950,
which is the original Complainant in a complaint filed
against the Petitioner in the Court of J.M.F.C., Junnar
being Complaint No. 125/2008.
3. The Petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher
with the school namely Subhash Vidya Mandir run by
the Respondent No. 2 since 10/06/1974 and was
promoted in June 1999 to the post of Supervisor.
4. The Petitioner was promoted on the post of
Headmaster from 01/11/2003 vide order delivered to
the Petitioner on 10/11/2003 which appointment was
accepted by the Petitioner vide letter dated
12/11/2003.
5. Surprisingly on the same day, the President of
Respondent No. 2 demanded a letter from the
Petitioner waiving his rights to the post of Head Master
and when refused, the Petitioner was abused,
threatened and assaulted on 14/11/2003 by the said
President on the flimsy grounds of signing muster
without his permission.
6. On 29/11/2003, the Petitioner lodged a Police
Complaint at Narayangaon Police Station against the
President of Respondent No. 2 and on 25/02/2004, the
Petitioner sent a legal notice to the Respondent No. 2
for allowing him to take charge of the post of Head
Master with retrospective effect and since no reply was
received, the Petitioner filed an Appeal to the School
Tribunal Pune which was allowed vide Judgment and
Order dated 26/04/2006.
7. The Writ Petition No. 4499 of 2006 preferred by the
Respondent No. 2 against the said order is admitted byVaibhav Page No. 3
::: Uploaded on – 02/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 08:34:41 :::
902-APL-568-2012.docthe Honourable High Court and is pending.
8. The Respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice to
the Petitioner and after holding an enquiry, the
Petitioner was found guilty of the charges leveled
against him and was reduced in rank on 12/07/2004
by way of punishment as a result of the alleged
enquiry.
9. The Petitioner challenged the said action before the
School Tribunal Pune by way of an appeal which was
allowed vide Judgment and Order dated 31/07/2006
holding his reduction of rank as illegal.
10. The said order was impugned by the Respondent No. 2
in Writ Petition No. 6943 of 2006 which is pending
before this Honourable Court.
11. The Respondent No. 2 issued a notice of compulsory
retirement of the Petitioner from the School on
13/06/2006 to be effective after 3 months.
12. The said notice was challenged by the Petitioner before
the School Tribunal Pune by filing an appeal which was
initially rejected on the ground of delay by order dated
15/09/2006 which was subsequently condoned by the
Honourable High Court in Writ Petition No.2554 of
2007 vide order dated 18/10/2007.
13. The appeal of the Petitioner was ultimately allowed by
the School Tribunal Pune vide Judgment and Order
dated 22/04/2008 and Respondent No. 2 was directed
to reinstate the Petitioner with full back wages.
14. In the meantime, the Petitioner was relieved from the
services of the Respondent No. 2 from 15/09/2006
under the guise of compulsory retirement.
15. The Petitioner challenged the said action before the
School Tribunal Pune by filing an appeal on the ground
of case of otherwise termination which was rejected by
vide Judgment and Order dated 03/04/2007. The
Petitioner has challenged the said order in Writ Petition
No. 7721 of 2007 which is admitted and pending forVaibhav Page No. 4
::: Uploaded on – 02/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 08:34:41 :::
902-APL-568-2012.docfinal hearing.
16. In the pending Writ Petition No. 7721 of 2007, the
Petitioner preferred an application being Civil
Application No. 1415 of 2009 for payment of back
wages which was allowed by the Honourable Court
vide order dated 29/06/2009 directing the Respondent
No. 2 herein along with other Respondents in the said
application to pay monthly pension of the Petitioner
within one month from the date of said order and also
to pay back wages if not already paid.
17. The Petitioner has already preferred Contempt Petition
No. 380 of 2009 before this Honourable Court for non-
compliance of the order dated 29/06/2009 which is
admitted vide order dated 26/10/2010 and pending for
final hearing.
18. The Respondent No. 2 has all along made deliberate
efforts to harass the Petitioner and keep him out of his
job, by filing one case after another.
19. The Petitioner had challenged the compulsory
retirement order, which was set aside in Appeal No. 44
of 2007 by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune
by Judgment and Order dated 24/04/2008.
20. The Respondent No. 2 had challenged the said order by
filing Writ Petition No.3866 of 2008 and after hearing
Advocate for both sides, this Honourable High Court
had dismissed the same on 16/01/2009 at the
admission stage itself.
21. The Respondent No. 2 preferred Letters Patent Appeal
No. 141 of 2010 which was also dismissed by the
Honourable Division Bench by Judgment and Order
dated 29/06/2010. In spite of the dismissal of Writ
Petition as well as Letters Patent Appeal, the
Respondent No.2 has not paid the legal dues of the
Petitioner.
22. After the impugned action of compulsory retirement
was set aside as being illegal, the Respondent No.2
ought to have paid the Petitioner all his dues whichVaibhav Page No. 5
::: Uploaded on – 02/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 08:34:41 :::
902-APL-568-2012.docthey have not complied with and have further
deliberately filed Criminal Complaint No.189 of 2010
on 09/08/2010 under Sections 193, 465, 468, 471, 493
and 494 of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner
and the then Head Master of the School alleging that
the Petitioner had committed forgery while
withdrawing non-refundable amount from his
provident fund in the year 1999 by submitting forged
documents in respect of marriage of his daughter.
23. The Petitioner has obtained Anticipatory Bail in the said
F.I.R. and is required to attend criminal court which is
an additional burden on him financially. This criminal
case is further alleging the payment of his retirement
dues and is a deliberate attempt on the part of the
Respondent No.2 to see to it that the Petitioner does
not receive his Pension entitlement.
24. Much after the compulsory retirement of the Petitioner
on 15/09/2006 and having failed in almost all the
rounds of litigation before the School Tribunal Pune,
the Respondent No.2 filed a Criminal Case No. 125 of
2008 against the Petitioner and one Mr. Vitthal
Kashinath Rohokale before the J.M.F.C., Junnar alleging
offences of forgery allegedly committed in the year
1999 alleging forgery by the Petitioner by withdrawing
non-refundable amount from his provident fund
account in the year 1999 by submitting forged
documents in respect of marriage of the daughter of the
Petitioner when he had no daughter.
25. The Petitioner was called upon to explain the said
forgery on29/10/2005 and the same was duly replied
by the Petitioner on 28/11/2005 stating that the
daughter is the issue of his second wife’s sister being
looked after by his present wife and she is therefore his
responsibility. The learned J.M.F.C. Junnar initially
directed enquiry under Section 156 (3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure 1973 at the hands of the police
authorities vide order dated 16/08/2008.
26. After the enquiry, the Narayangaon Police Station filed
Charge-Sheet against the Petitioner under Sections
issued process against the Petitioner under SectionsVaibhav Page No. 6
::: Uploaded on – 02/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 08:34:41 :::
902-APL-568-2012.doc193, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code on
11/01/2012.
27. The learned J.M.F.C. Junnar, after considering the
Charge-Sheet, issued summons to the Petitioner vide
order dated 11/01/2012.
28. The Petitioner appeared before the learned Magistrate
immediately and was released on bail. The case is now
renumbered as Regular Criminal Case (R.C.C.) No.7 of
2012.
29. Hence this Petition seeking quashing of Complaint, FIR
and Charge-Sheet.”
(Emphasis added)
7. The perusal of the record shows that the Applicant was working
as an Assistant Teacher with the School namely Subhash Vidya Mandir
run by Respondent No.2 since 10 th June, 1974 and was promoted in
June, 1999 to the post of Supervisor. He was thereafter promoted to the
post of Head Master with effect from 1st November, 2003.
8. It is the contention of the Applicant that on very date i.e. on 10 th
November, 2003 the President of Respondent No.2 demanded a letter
from the Applicant waiving his rights to the post of Head Master and as
the Applicant refused to sign such a letter, he was abused, threatened
and assaulted on 14th November, 2003. The Applicant was constrained
to lodge a Police Complaint due to the said assault.
9. It is the case of the Applicant that as the Applicant was not
allowed to take charge of the post of Head Master, the Applicant was
required to file Appeal in School Tribunal, Pune, which was allowed by
Vaibhav Page No. 7
::: Uploaded on – 02/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 08:34:41 :::
902-APL-568-2012.doc
order dated 26th April, 2006. Although, Writ Petition No.4499 of 2006
preferred against said order is pending in this Court no stay has been
granted.
10. In the meanwhile, the Respondent No.2 issued a show cause
notice to the Applicant and by order dated 12th July, 2004 he was
reduced in rank by way of punishment. The said action was challenged
by the Applicant by filing Appeal before the School Tribunal, Pune and
by order dated 31st July, 2006 the said reduction in rank was held to be
illegal. The said action was also challenged by the Respondent No.2 by
filing Writ Petition No.6943 of 2006 and the said Writ Petition is also
pending in this Court, however, no stay has been granted.
11. Thereafter the Respondent No.2 issued a notice of compulsory
retirement to the Applicant from the School on 13 th June, 2006. The
School Tribunal, Pune allowed the Appeal challenging the same by
order dated 22nd April, 2008 and the Applicant was directed to be
reinstated with full back wages. The said order dated 22 nd April, 2008 of
the School Tribunal was challenged before a learned Single Judge by
filing Writ Petition No.3866 of 2008 and the said Writ Petition has been
dismissed by order dated 16th January, 2009. The said order dated 16 th
January, 2009 has been challenged by filing Letters Patent Appeal
No.141 of 2010 and the said Letters Patent Appeal has also been
dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 29th June,
Vaibhav Page No. 8
::: Uploaded on – 02/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 08:34:41 :::
902-APL-568-2012.doc
2010.
12. In the meanwhile, the Applicant was again relieved from the
services of the Respondent No.2 from 15 th September, 2006 under the
pretext of compulsory retirement. The said action was challenged before
the School Tribunal, Pune and the School Tribunal, Pune dismissed the
Appeal vide Judgment and Order dated 3 rd April, 2007. The Applicant
has challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No.7721 of 2007
and the said Writ Petition was admitted and pending for final hearing.
In said Writ Petition No.7721 of 2007, the Applicant preferred an
Application being Civil Application No.1415 of 2009 for payment of
back wages which was allowed by a learned Single Judge by order
dated 29th June, 2009. The Respondent No.2 – Institution has been
directed to pay monthly pension and also to pay back wages. As the said
order was not complied with, Contempt Petition No.380 of 2009 has
been filed, which is pending for final hearing.
13. The above factual position clearly shows that, there is substance
in the contention raised by Ms. Agarwal, learned Counsel, that
Respondent No.2 has all along made deliberate efforts to harass the
Applicant and kept him out of the job by removing him from service on
many occasions.
14. It is the submission of Ms. Agarwal, learned Counsel that when
the action of compulsory retirement dated 13 th June 2006 was set aside
Vaibhav Page No. 9
::: Uploaded on – 02/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 08:34:41 :::
902-APL-568-2012.doc
by the learned School Tribunal, Pune by order dated 22 nd April, 2008
and the challenge to the said order has failed vide order dated 16 th
January, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No.3866 of 2008 as confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court by
order dated 29th June, 2010 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.141 of
2010, thereafter, malafidely and deliberately Criminal Complaint
No.189 of 2010 was filed on 9 th August, 2010 under Sections 193, 465,
468, 471, 493 and 494 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC“) alleging that
the Applicant had committed forgery while withdrawing non-refundable
amount from his provident fund in the year 1999 by submitting forged
documents in respect of marriage of his daughter.
15. It is submitted by Ms. Agarwal, learned Counsel that the said
daughter is Applicant’s wife’s sister and said daughter was being looked
after by the present Applicant and his wife as daughter since inception
and she has been maintained through out by both of them. Her
marriage was also fixed by the Applicant and for her marriage expenses
amount has been withdrawn from his provident fund account. Ms.
Agarwal, submitted that, the Applicant withdrew the amount from his
own provident fund account and therefore there was no loss to
Respondent No.2. In fact, the marriage invitation card also mentions
that the Applicant is the father and Applicant’s wife is the mother of
said daughter.
Vaibhav Page No. 10
::: Uploaded on – 02/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 08:34:41 :::
902-APL-568-2012.doc
16. The factual position on record clearly show that, a malafide
Criminal Case has been lodged against the present Applicant in the year
2010 for the incident which has taken place in the year 1999, just to the
ensure that retirement dues and pension are denied to the Applicant.
17. A learned Single Judge while admitting this Criminal Application
has passed following order on 17th April, 2013:-
“1. Heard both sides. Perused the application with all
annexures thereto. Prima facie, arguable questions have been
raised and, particularly, in the backdrop of the earlier disputes,
differences and litigation between the parties.
2. Hence, Rule.
3. There will be an interim stay in terms of prayer clause
(c). The Respondents waive service.
4. It is clarified that since this Court has stayed further
proceedings in the criminal case and has admitted this Writ
Petition because, it raises arguable questions and issues, the
Competent Authority not to withhold the pension of the
Petitioner and if it is not released in terms of the applicable
policies and regulations, it be released within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”
(Emphasis added)
Thus, this Court specifically directed the Competent Authority not to
withhold the pension of the Applicant as apparently the case has been
filed to deny benefit of pension to the Applicant. The reference in the
said order is made to the earlier disputes, differences and litigation
between the parties. The position on record clearly shows that the
criminal case filed against the Applicant is for the malafide purpose.
Vaibhav Page No. 11
::: Uploaded on – 02/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 08:34:41 :::
902-APL-568-2012.doc
18. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v.
Bhajan Lal & Ors.1 has set out the parameters for exercise of jurisdiction
under Section 482 of CrPC. The relevant portion of Paragraph No.102,
reads as under:-
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories
of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give
an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
(1) 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 entirety do not
prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused.
(2) …
(3) …
(4) …
(5) 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.
(6) …
1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Vaibhav Page No. 12
::: Uploaded on – 02/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 08:34:41 :::
902-APL-568-2012.doc
(7) 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.”
(Emphasis added)
19. The Supreme Court set out the following principles in the case of
Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat 2 in Paragraph No.16, the relevant
portion of which reads as under:-
“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents
on the subject, may be summarised in the following
propositions:
16.1. Section 482 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.
16.2. …
16.3. 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.
16.4. 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.
20. Again the Supreme Court in the case of Mahmood Ali & Ors. v.
State of U. P. & Ors. 3 has reiterated the parameters laid down in the
case of Bhajan Lal (supra) and further observed in Paragraph No.12, as
2 (2017) 9 SCC 641
3 Cr. Appeal No.2341 of 2023
Vaibhav Page No. 13
::: Uploaded on – 02/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 08:34:41 :::
902-APL-568-2012.doc
under:-
“12. At this stage, we would like to observe something
Important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court
Invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the
FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the
ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty
to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say
so because once the complainant decides to proceed against
the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal
vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint
is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The
complainant would ensure that the averments made in the
FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary
ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will
not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments
made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute
the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or
vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into
many other attending circumstances emerging from the
record of the case over and above the averments and, if need
be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between
the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution
need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is
empowered to take into account the overall circumstances
leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the
materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for
instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered
over a period of time. It is in the background of such
circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes
importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking
vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.”
The Supreme Court has said that whenever an Accused comes before
the Court invoking either inherent powers under Section 482 of the
CrPC or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
Vaibhav Page No. 14
::: Uploaded on – 02/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 08:34:41 :::
902-APL-568-2012.doc
to get the FIR or the Criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the
ground that the proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or
instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such
circumstances, the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR a little more
closely. It has been further held that, if the Complainant decides to
proceed against the Accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking
personal vengeance etc. then he would ensure that the FIR /Complaint
is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings and the
Complainant would ensure that the averments made in the
FIR/Complaint are such that they disclosed the necessary ingredient to
constitute the alleged offence. It has been held that, therefore, in a
frivolous or vexatious proceedings, it is the Court’s duty to look into
many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the
case over and above the averments. The said observations are squarely
applicable to the present case.
21. The material on record clearly shows that, the criminal case
which has been filed by the Respondent No.2 is totally false and
frivolous case and instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance and to ensure that the Applicant is deprived of his retirement
and pensionary benefits.
22. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of this case the Criminal
Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) with cost. The
Vaibhav Page No. 15
::: Uploaded on – 02/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 08:34:41 :::
902-APL-568-2012.doc
Respondent No.2 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as cost to
the Applicant within a period of 4 weeks to the Applicant.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Vaibhav Page No. 16
::: Uploaded on – 02/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 08:34:41 :::