Rajesh Masurkar vs State of Maharashtra - Criminal Application

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 16, Cited by 0 ] ### Bombay High Court

Rajesh S/O Kashinathrao Masurkar vs State Of Maharashtra Through Police ... on 9 March, 2026

1 43.APL.1286-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

       CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1286 OF 2025

1. Rajesh s/o Kashinathrao Masurkar,
   Age:- Occ:- Secretary,
   Add: 168, Omnagar Nagpur 440024.

2. Sangita d/o Vishwanath Rahate,
   Age:- 58 years, Occ:- President Sudhir
   Shikshan Sanstha Nagpur,
   Add: 168, Omnagar Nagpur 440024.

3. Sau Bharti w/o Deepakrao Khadase,
   Age:- 50 years, Occ:- Private,
   R/o 32 Aradhana Nagar, Nagpur.

4. Ku Aaishwaraya d/o Rajesh Masurkar,
   Age: Occ:- Private,
   Add: 168, Omnagar Nagpur 440024.

5. Prakash Kashinathrao Masurkar,
   Age:- 60 years, Occ:- Private,
   Add:- 104, Omnagar Nagpur 440024.

6. Sunita Lakshmanrao Zode,
   Age 58 years, Occ:- Private,
   Add:- 104, Omnagar Nagpur 440024.

7. Aruna w/o Ramesh Bante,
   Age:- 60 years Occ:- Retired Principal,
   Add:- 100, sarvashree nagar,
   Nagpur-34. APPLICANTS

::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:31:14 :::
2 43.APL.1286-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

        Versus

1. State of Maharashtra,
   Thr. P.S. Hudkeshwar Dist:- Nagpur.

2. Ku. Nilkamal d/o Krupakar Borkar,
   Age 45 years, Occ:- Teacher,
   R/o Plot No 87, Vitthal Nagar 02
   Near Panchaleshwar Temple,
   P. S. Hudkeshwar Nagpur
   Phone No 8007918099
   Email :- [email protected] NON-APPLICANTS

---

Mr. N.M. Gaidhane, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. N.H. Joshi, APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State.
Mr. D.S. Jagyasi, Advocate for the Non-applicant No.2.

---

                           CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.

                           DATED      : 09th MARCH, 2026.

ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard.

1. ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learned

Counsel for the respective parties.

1. The present Application is preferred by the

Applicants under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:31:14 ::: 3 43.APL.1286-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, for quashing of the First Information

Report in connection with Crime No.332/2025 registered with

Police Station Hudkeshwar, District Nagpur for the offence

punishable under Sections 167, 420, 465, 468, 217, 471 read

with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short " IPC ").

1. The crime is registered on the basis of a report

lodged by the Non-applicant No.2/ Nilkamal Borkar on an

allegation that on 31.01.2024, after one year of lodging

complaint, FIR came to be registered against total 9 accused

persons including the present Applicants. It is contended that,

earlier also she has filed the complaint but NC case was

registered against the present Applicants. As per her allegations,

the complainant was appointed on 01.07.2005 as Assistant

Teacher for Class 1 to 4 Standard as of Marathi School

Sarvashree Uccha Prathamik Vidyalay run by the Applicant No.1

under the name of Sudhir Shikshan Santha. It is alleged that,

during 30.09.2023 to 16.02.2024 the Applicant No.1 alongwith

other Applicants i.e. the office bearers and Teacher Aruna Bante

had misused their office and prepared false documents and used

them as genuine. During investigation it reveals that, on::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:31:14 ::: 4 43.APL.1286-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

30.09.2023, the Applicant No. 7 retired who was the then

Principal. The complainant was appointed on 01.07.2005 but

her appointment shown from 26.06.2007 and by which

promotion was denied to the complainant on the post of

Principal. The Education Officer was directed by the Deputy

Director of Education on 01.01.2025 to enquire and accordingly

the enquiry was conducted, and thereafter, the FIR came to be

registered against the present Applicants. On the basis of the

said report Police have registered the crime against the present

Applicants.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants, who

submitted that, Applicant No. 1 is Secretary of reputed

education Trust Sudhir Shikshan Sanstha Nagpur, while

Applicant No. 2 is President of said Trust and Applicant Nos. 3

to 6 are Trustees of the said Trust. It is submitted that, Applicant

No. 7 is Retired Principal of said Sudhir Shikshan Sanstha

Nagpur. The Non-applicant No. 2 is the Complainant as well as

ex-teacher worked in Marathi School of Sarvashree Uccha

Pratmik Vidyalaya run under the said Sudhir Shikshan Sanstha::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:31:14 ::: 5 43.APL.1286-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

and now she is working as a Teacher in Sarswati Uccha

Prathmik Shala, Binaki Mangalwari.

1. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the

Applicants that, the entire allegations levelled against the

present Applicants are of civil nature and only remedy available

to the present Applicants is before the School Tribunal. By no

stretch of imagination it can be said that, any criminal offence is

made out against the present Applicants. He submitted that,

even the enquiry report of the Education Officer nowhere

reveals any offence is committed by the present Applicants. He

submitted that the enquiry report only reveals that, the present

Applicants could not produce the letters of the parents who

have withdrawn the admissions of their children and thereby

the reference was made to close the 1 to 4 classes from the said

School. He submitted that, even the resolution which is passed

is also to show that the issue pending was regarding the

promotion to Non-applicant No.2. As a promotion was denied to

her, therefore, this false report came to be lodged against the

present Applicants. He submitted that, the allegations that the

number of students intentionally recorded to be zero on::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:31:14 ::: 6 43.APL.1286-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

30.09.2023, is baseless, false and without any substance. The

allegation that, the complainant intentionally declared surplus

and it affects her seniority, is also baseless and false one and no

criminal offence is made out from that. Thus, he submitted that

even accepting the allegations as it is, there is nothing on record

to show that, there was intention since inception or all the

Applicants entered into the agreement to do an illegal act and in

view of that they entered into the conspiracy and thereby

committed an offence. He submitted that, there is nothing on

record to show that, the present Applicants have committed any

forgery regarding the documents as the enquiry report also

nowhere reveals that the forged documents are prepared by the

present Applicants, and therefore, the Application deserves to be

allowed.

1. Per contra, learned APP and the learned Counsel for

the Non-applicant No. 2, strongly opposed the said contention

and invited my attention towards the communication of Deputy

Director of Education to the Education Officer dated

12.06.2024, by which the enquiry initiated regarding the issue.

The enquiry report is also on record. The substance of the::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:31:14 ::: 7 43.APL.1286-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

enquiry report shows that, the Applicants are responsible for the

illegal act and thereby the permission granted for classes 1 to 4

was rejected. They have also invited my attention towards the

resolution passed by the present Applicants and submitted that

the resolution itself shows that to deprive the Non-applicant

No.2 from getting the promotion intentionally the record was

prepared to show that there are no students, and therefore, the

Non-applicant No.2 became surplus and her services are

terminated. Thus, they submitted that, considering the entire

record, sufficient to attract the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 217 and 471 read with Section 120-B of

IPC, and therefore, the Application deserves to be rejected.

1. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the

recitals of the FIR and the entire investigation papers, the issue

involved in the present crime is that, the Non-applicant No.2

was serving as a Teacher and it is alleged by her that, she was

due for promotion and at that time intentionally the present

Applicants have reduced the students to deprive her from

getting promotion and she was shown to be surplus by showing

the another Teacher Hemraj Dhote as senior to her and thereby::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:31:14 ::: 8 43.APL.1286-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

promotion was denied to her and for that purpose the false and

fabricated documents were prepared.

1. On perusal of the entire investigation papers and

documents filed on record shows that, the issue regarding

reducing the number of students is concerned, the enquiry was

conducted. The enquiry report shows that, in September 2023

there were 93 students and on 30.09.2023, 87 students were

there. During enquiry the Applicants have not produced any

letters or the request letters of the parents of the students who

have withdrawn the admissions of the students from their

school. The point No.5 of the said enquiry report shows that:

"5- ojhy eqnnk dz- 13 uqlkj ,dkgh ikydkaps T.C. feG.;kckcrps
vtZ miyC/k ulY;kps pkSd'khr fnlwu vkys- rlsp 4 lIVsacj 2023
uarj ,dkp osGh loZ fo|kF;kZaP;k T.C. ns.;kph
dk;Zokgh 'kkGk iz'kklukdMwu >kY;kps fnlwu ;srs-

6- ojhy eqnnk dz- 6 vUo;s 30 lIVsacj 2023 jksth vuqnkfur oxZ
1 rs 4 ph iVla[;k 0 ¼'kqU;½ >kY;kus laLFkk 'kkGk can dj.;kpk
izLrko lknj dj.;kP;k fopkjk/khu vlY;kps laLFkk lfpo ;kaP;k
i=kr uewn vlY;kps fnlwu ;srs"
10. I have perused the resolution also, the

resolution passed, which reads as under:

::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:31:14 :::

9 43.APL.1286-2025.JUDGMENT.odt::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:31:14 ::: 10 43.APL.1286-2025.JUDGMENT.odt::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:31:14 ::: 11 43.APL.1286-2025.JUDGMENT.odt::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:31:14 ::: 12 43.APL.1286-2025.JUDGMENT.odt::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:31:14 ::: 13 43.APL.1286-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
11. Thus, in the Enquiry Report dated 12.06.2024

submitted to the Non-Applicant No. 1 on 24.10.2024 Education

Department in which found that upon Muster Roll of the School,

93 Students were on record on 04.09.2023, however, on

30.09.2023 U-dias portal shown the strength of student of Class

1 to 4 as zero. 43 transfer Certificates of the students were given

from 04.07.2023 to 28.09.2023 by the sign of Applicant No.7

rest of the 50 students Transfer Certificates does not bear entry

in the Transfer Certificate Register. The Applicants as per the

enquiry report failed to show any application from the parents

for issuance of Transfer Certificates of their children. It shows

that, as per the allegations the present Applicants have prepared

false and bogus documents. However, this allegation is not

substantiated by any material as the Enquiry Report nowhere

shows that it was the present Applicants who have prepared the

forged documents. It only show that, they could not produce the

documents to show that, the parents have withdrawn the

admissions from the said School. Thus, by no stretch of

imagination it can be said that, the present Applicants are

involved in the commission of offence by preparing the false

and forged documents.

::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:31:14 :::

14 43.APL.1286-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

1. At the most, this issue can be referred or resorted by

the School Tribunal by entertaining the grievance of the

Non-applicant No.2.

1. Before considering the other allegations levelled

against the present Applicants, it is necessary to see the

parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

State of Harayana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. , 1992 AIR

604, which reads as under:

"(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) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(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::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:31:14 ::: 15 43.APL.1286-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is
a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.

(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."
14. In the light of the above said parameters the entire

facts and circumstances of the present case are to be looked into

which revolves around the issue regarding reducing the number

of students which initially admitted in the School and

subsequently withdrawn their admissions. As far as the forgery

is concerned, admittedly, there is no material on record to show

that exactly who has committed the said forged act.

1. To constitute an offence under Section 420 of 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 person shall::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:31:14 ::: 16 43.APL.1286-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that

person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or

omit.

1. In the present Application for the offence punishable

under Section 420 of IPC, the intention since inception is

required, which is absent in the present case.

1. To attract the offence punishable under [Section

120-B](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1897847/) of IPC, the elements of a criminal conspiracy have been

stated to be: (a) an object to be accomplished, (b) a plan or

scheme embodying means to accomplish that object, (c) an

agreement or understanding between two or more of the

accused persons whereby they become definitely committed to

co-operate for the accomplishment of the object by the means

embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means, (d) in

the jurisdiction where the statute required an overt act. The

essence of a criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination

and ordinarily the offence is complete when the combination is

framed. Admittedly, no direct evidence would be available to

prove the conspiracy but there has to be some material on::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:31:14 ::: 17 43.APL.1286-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

record to show that there was a conspiracy entered into by the

present Applicants.

1. On the plain reading of the complaint fails to spell

out any of the aforesaid ingredients noted above. If it is a case

of the Complainant that the present Applicants have committed

an offence of a forgery than there has to be some material to

show that, who has actually done the act of forgery and

benefited by the same.

1. The learned Counsel for the Applicants, has rightly

submitted that at the most this issue can be resolved before the

School Tribunal by making a grievance to the School Tribunal

regarding the seniority of the Non-applicant No.2 is concerned.

1. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [Delhi Race

Club (1940) Limited & Ors., Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/34629718/),

(2024) 10 SCC 690, wherein it is observed that, 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 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

There is nothing in the complaint to show that the respondents::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:31:14 ::: 18 43.APL.1286-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time of the

incident. 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.

1. To put it in other words, the case of cheating

dishonest intention starts with the very inception of the

transaction. But in the present case, admittedly, there is nothing

on record to show that there was intention since inception to

commit such type of offence, and therefore, any record is

prepared by the present Applicants.

1. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of

the present case, as observed earlier, at the most the grievance

can be referred by the Non-applicant No.2 before the School

Tribunal regarding her seniority is concerned. As far as criminal

offence is concerned, no criminal offence is made out from the::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:31:14 ::: 19 43.APL.1286-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

recitals of the FIR as well as from the various statements

recorded by the Investigating Agency, and therefore, no criminal

offence is made out from the said investigation carried out by

the Investigating Officer.

1. In the case of [Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana &

Anr.](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/43947535/), 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.
24. In the case of [Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of

Uttarakhand & Ors.](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/6591830/), 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 not depends upon the nature of facts alleged::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:31:14 ::: 20 43.APL.1286-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

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."
25. The ingredients of cheating as defined under [Section

415](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1306824/) of IPC are not made out even accepting the allegations in

the complaint at their face value, as well as the offence under Sections 465, 468, 471 of IPC are also not made as there is

nothing on record to show that who from the present Applicants

have prepared the forged documents. In fact, there is nothing

on record to show that the forged record is prepared by the

present Applicants and the said forged record was used by

them. In view of that, the Application deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

       i.    Criminal Application is allowed. ii. The First Information Report in connection with
             Crime No. 332/2025 registered with Police Station::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026                             ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:31:14 ::: 21                  43.APL.1286-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

                          Hudkeshwar,     District   Nagpur     for      the       offence
                          punishable under [Sections 167](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1815602/), [420](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1436241/), [465](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1317063/), [468](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/556166/), [217](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1441158/), [471](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1466184/) read with [Section 120-B](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1897847/) of the Indian Penal
                          Code, is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent
                          of the present Applicants.

1.           Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of
   
         accordingly.
   

(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)

S.D.Bhimte::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:31:14 :::