Sau Minakshi Chandrakant Malode v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Pso Gadge Nagar Amravati

2024:BHC-NAG:14216

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 955 OF 2024 Sau Minakshi Chandrakant Malode Vs State Of Maharashtra Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, counsel with Mr. A.C. Khadse, counsel for applicant. Mr. H.D.Dubey, APP for non-applicant/State.

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

DATED : 20/12/2024.

1.

The applicant came to be arrested on 17/08/2023 in connection with Crime No. 27/2023 registered with Police Station, Gadgenagar District Amravati for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471, 384, 385, 394, 294, 506(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

The accusation against the present applicant is on the basis of a report lodged by Suresh Rambhau Wankhade, who alleged that he was serving as a Teacher at Bulidan Rathi Dumb and Deaf School and married with one Sarawasti on 13/05/1990, who is one of the nominees in his service record. One woman by name Tara Suresh Wankhede had obtained a fraudulent certificate of marriage and filed a case for obtaining the pension amount. The Court rejected her application, and with no option left, she approached to

present applicant, and the present applicant projected herself as a Judge and conducted her proceedings. It is further alleged that the present applicant and other co-accused set up the Arbitration Tribunal and promised the various litigants to settle their dispute. It is further alleged that the arbitration took place before the present applicant, and on 03/01/2022, after attending the proceeding at the Arbitration Tribunal, the complainant, who was standing alone outside at the Tribunal premises, and Tara Suresh Wankhede came from behind and pulled his shirt and pushed him to the ground. He was assaulted and abused with filthy language, and they also snatched his phone and money. Therefore, the complainant approached the present applicant, and the co-accused have demanded the amount of Rs.

5,000/- from him in order to obtain a stay order upon the interim order passed by the present applicant as an Arbitrator. Said Tara Suresh Wankhede has lodged a report against Suresh Wankhade under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence much earlier than the complainant filed the present complaint. Thus, it is alleged that the present applicant and the co-accused were running the Arbitration Tribunal without any permission from any competent authority and running the parallel Court and passing the order in a manner where the Court of Law has already rejected the application.

3.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, who submitted that the offences alleged for which punishment less than seven years is provided. The applicant, since the

date of his arrest, is behind bars. Now, the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed, there is no progress in the trial. Considering the quantum of punishment, the maximum period the applicant has undergone. The trial will take its own time for its conclusion. In view of that, and on the ground of delay in trial, the application deserves to be allowed, and she be released on bail.

4.

Learned APP strongly opposed the said application on the ground that during the investigation, an office search of the present applicant and the co-accused was conducted and the various documents were seized. It reveals from the various documents that one Arbitration Center is run by the present applicant and other co-accused, and they were working in the capacity of the Arbitrator. The present applicant has also directed the Senior Police Inspector of Rajapeth Police Station to register an offence under Sections 188 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code and asked him to produce the accused before the Tribunal in order to initiate action as per Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) against the non-applicant and her father because they have committed contempt of the interim custody order issued by the Tribunal.

On perusal of the letter dated 12/09/2022 issued by the present applicant to the Divisional Commissioner asking for assistance in respect of a place to run the Arbitration Center upon that the Divisional Commissioner issued a letter to the District Collector to consider the request of the applicant.

informing them that one government residential place is available and it be allotted to the Arbitration Center. Thus, it was posed that the present applicant and the other coaccused are serving as a public servant and working as Arbitration Officer and several orders are passed and also directions are given to the investigating agency. He submitted that the applicant personated herself as a Judge, though she had knowledge that she was not a public servant, and passed various orders and obtained the money from various litigants. Considering the act of the applicant that she has duped several litigants by impersonating that she is serving as a Judge in Arbitration Center and deciding the litigations and representing that they are acting as a Court. He submitted that in view of that, the application deserves to be rejected.

5.

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State, it reveals that the applicant was running one Arbitration Tribunal, and it was represented that they are running the said Tribunal under the guidance of the Hon'ble Apex Court. It was also represented that the said Arbitration Center is run to decide the litigation between the parties. Thus, the present applicant has impersonated herself as a public servant and posed herself as a Judge of that Arbitration Center, though she is not a public servant. Not only this, they have issued the directions to the various persons working in the said Tribunal and also directed them to produce the person before

the Tribunal in order to initiate action as per Section 340 of Cr. P.C. Thus, it was shown that she is working as a Presiding Officer of the said Arbitration Tribunal and having the powers of Magistrate. Not only this, but through this Tribunal the matrimonial disputes, custody matters, custody of the child, and the orders as to the releasing of the accused persons on bail are passed. The present applicant is one of the main culprits in the said crime. During the course of the investigation, it revealed that the present applicant and other co-accused not only posed themselves to be a public servant of Government Institutions and duped various persons, but they posed themselves as a Chief Arbitrator of the Arbitration Tribunal and established the said Arbitration Court, appointed various persons and decided 1756 matters.

They have applied for the police protection from the Gadgenagar Police Station and written a letter to the Gadgenagar Police Station mentioning that the Arbitration Court is functioning under the control and supervision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and they should be provided the police protection. The applicant and the other co-accused have also issued the marriage certificate, child custody orders, stopping pensionary benefits and also directions to the police officer to investigate under their seal and signature as Arbitration Officer. From the entire investigation it reveals that, the present applicant not only posed himself as a Judge of the Arbitration Center, but she has passed many orders as, she is working as a Presiding Officer of the court. Thus, they run the parallel legal system illegally.

present applicant, which is of a serious nature, posing themselves as a Presiding Officer of the Court and passing order illegally and even exercised the powers of the High Court issuing various writs. Due to the act of the present applicant, the possibility of losing the faith of the people in the system cannot be ruled out. On that ground, the application deserves to be rejected.

6.

The application is also filed on the ground that there is a delay in trial. The applicant is arrested on 17/08/2023. The status report called from the concerned Court shows that the applicant and other co-accused have filed various applications during the pendency of the trial, including the discharge applications and the bail applications, in which the time of the Court was consumed. Thus it is not the trial that was held up due to the prosecution or the Court. It is due to the accused that the trial was delayed.

7.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in recent order in the case of [X Vs State of Rajasthan in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13378/2024 dated 27/11/2024], have considered this issue and it is held that it is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed.

8.

Thus, considering the role of the present applicant and the above offence and considering the gravity of the offence, the application deserves to be rejected. In view of that, I proceed to pass following order. The application is rejected and disposed of.

[URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]