Angad Keshavrao Panchal v. Prakash Balkrishna Yalgulwar And ORS

ssm 1 14-wp1530.15.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1530 OF 2015 Angad Keshavrao Panchal ....Petitioner.

Vs.

Prakash Balkrishna Yalgulwar & Ors.

....Respondents.

Mr. A.B. Tajane for the Petitioner.

Mr. Anvil Kalekar for Respondent No.1 to 26.

Mr. A.R. Patil APP, for the Respondent­State. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J.

DATE : 5th OCTOBER, 2018.

P.C.:­ The Petitioner has impugned Order dated 15th September 2012 passed in RCC No. 1549 of 2010 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur, dismissing the complaint filed by the Petitioner and the Order dated 1st September 2014 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Solapur in Criminal Revision No. 268 of 2012 whereby disposing off the Revision for want of prosecution.

Heard Mr. Tajane, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Kalekar, the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 26 and the learned APP. Perused the record.

1/3

ssm 2 14-wp1530.15.doc The record indicates that, the Petitioner was employed as a Music teacher with the Rajiv Gandhi Memorial School for the Blinds, at Solapur. It is the contention of the Petitioner that, the Respondents who were governing the said institution forced him to sign certain documents and also forged his signature and withdrew an amount of Rs.20,504/­ from his salary account and initiated false Departmental Inquiry against him. The record further indicates that, as a matter of fact, the Petitioner has instituted various criminal complaints against the Respondents, which have been dismissed by the concerned Court at the stage of issuance of process itself.

It is the further fact on record that, due to the misconduct committed by the Petitioner, a Departmental Inquiry had been initiated against him by the Management of the said School and therefore, it clearly appears that as a counter­blast, various complaints against the Respondents have been instituted by the Petitioner. A minute perusal of the pleadings of the Complaint and the verification statement of the Petitioner coupled with the documents on record would clearly indicate that, no offence against the Respondents has been made out as alleged by the Petitioner. As noted earlier, it is only as a counter­blast, the present Complaint has 2/3

ssm 3 14-wp1530.15.doc been instituted by the Petitioner against the Respondents by making baseless allegations against them.

After perusing the entire record, this Court is of the considered view that, both the Courts below have not committed any error, either in law or on facts, while passing the impugned Orders dated 15th September 2012 and 1st September 2014 respectively. Petition being devoid of any merits, is accordingly rejected.

(A.S. GADKARI, J.) 3/3