Chavhan vs State of Maharashtra - Quashing of FIR

## 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 22, Cited by 0 ] ### Bombay High Court

Bharat S/O Chandusingh Chavhan And 3 ... vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Asegaon ... on 13 March, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:4287-DB

          Judgment

                                                                   apl192.23

                                         1

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

                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL NO.192 OF 2023

          1. Bharat s/o Chandusingh Chavhan,
          aged about 56 years, occupation: agriculturist.

          2. Ganesh s/o Chandusingh Chavhan,
          aged about 54, occupation: agriculturist.

          3. Vandana Bharat Chavhan,
          aged about 53 years, occupation: household.

          4. Ravindra Mansingh Rathod,
          aged about 43 years, occupation : agriculturist.

          r/o Palodi, taluka Manora,
          district Washim.                       ..... Applicants.
                                 :: V E R S U S ::
          1. The State of Maharashtra,
          through Police Station Officer,
          Police Station Asegon,
          District Washim.

          2. Pravin s/o Bhopsingh Jadhav,
          aged about 30 years,
          occupation: agriculturist,
          r/o Palodi, taluka Manora,
          district Washim.               ..... Non-applicants.
          ================================
          Shri R.S.Kurekar, for Applicants.
          Shri N.B.Jawade, APP for NA No.1/State.
          Shri V.K.Paliwal, Counsel for NA No.2.
          ================================

                                                                     .....2/-

Judgment

                                                    apl192.23

                           2

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
RESERVED ON : 06/03/2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 13/03/2026

JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective

parties. Admit. Heard finally by consent.

1. By this application, present applicants are seeking

quashing of FIR in connection with Crime No.283/2022

registered with non-applicant No.1 police station for offences

under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 read with 34 of

the IPC and consequent proceeding arising out of the same

bearing RCC No.72/2025 pending on the file of learned

JMFC, Court No.2, Manora, district Washim.

1. Brief facts for disposal of the application are as under:

The FIR in question came to be registered on the

basis of directions given by learned JMFC at Washim as

non-applicant No.2 (the complainant) has moved an

application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, alleging that

.....3/-

Judgment

apl192.23 3 present applicants have misused their position in running

educational institution and by misusing powers, appointed

some persons on various posts though there was no

permission obtained and thereby they have committed

offence under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 read

with 34 of the IPC.
4. The application filed by the complainant was

registered as bearing Misc.Criminal Complaint Case

No.82/2022. Learned JMFC at Manora, by passing order

on 17.9.2022, ordered investigation and on the basis of the

said direction, the FIR came to be registered against

present applicants. It is alleged that certain documents of

the school are stolen by present applicants.

1. The spot panchanama came to be drawn on

30.11.2022. The Investigation Officer found that lock was

broken and the said broken lock was seized by the

investigating officer.

.....4/-

Judgment

                                                      apl192.23 4

1. During the investigation, the investigation officer,

though conducted a search, no document was seized at the

instance of present applicants. After completion of the

investigation, chargesheet was filed against present

applicants on allegations that appointments of present

applicants are contrary to provisions of "Vasantrao Naik

Vidyalaya" at Palodi, taluka Manora, district Washim (the

said school). It is further alleged that for seeking an

appointment in the said school, present applicants have

prepared forged and bogus documents and on the basis of

the same, their appointments were made and thereby they

have cheated the Government as well as the society by

which the said school is run.

Thus, after completion of the investigation,

chargesheet came to be filed against present applicants.

1. Learned counsel for present applicants submitted

that the complainant filed an application bearing

                                                        .....5/-

Judgment

                                                apl192.23 5 Misc.Criminal Complaint Case No.82/2022 under [Section

156(3)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/833310/) of the Code. The said application was filed without

following due procedure under Sections 154 and 155 of

the Code. The application filed by the complainant was

also not supported by an affidavit. However, learned

Magistrate has not considered the same and directions

were given for registration of the FIR.

Learned counsel for present applicants submitted

that there is a non-compliance of directions given by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [Priyanka Srivastava and

anr vs. State of UP](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163299097/), reported in (2015)6 SCC 287. The

complainant has not followed the due procedure in view of Sections 154 and 155 of the Code. The application by the

complainant is also not supported by affidavit. Learned

Magistrate has not taken care of directions of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of [Priyanka Srivastava and anr vs.

State of UP](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163299097/) supra.

.....6/-

Judgment

                                                  apl192.23 6 It is further submitted that even accepting the

allegations as it is, none of statements of witnesses shows

that present applicants have produced forged certificates or

documents and on the basis of the said documents, their

appointments were made.

He submitted that even order of the Education Officer

shows that appointment of one Avinash Madhukar Pandhre is

not valid. The appointment of applicant No.1 Bharat s/o

Chandusingh Chavhan is during the period when there was

prohibition for recruitment. Similarly, appointments of

applicant No.3 Vandana Bharat Chavhan; Roshan Chauhan,

and Sandip Khisude are also during the prohibition of

recruitment. It further reveals from the enquiry report of the

Education Officer that joining by present applicants nowhere

reveals from the muster roll for the period from 10.3.2012 to

30.11.2015, but their signatures are appearing on the muster

roll of December 2015 to February 2016. An Advertisement

was not published after obtaining proper permission from the

                                                    .....7/-

Judgment

                                                 apl192.23 7 Education Officer. The Notice was not published in a widely

circulated newspaper.

Thus, he submitted that this enquiry report nowhere

shows that appointments of present applicants were on the

basis of forged and bogus documents. Therefore, allegations

levelled against present applicants appear to be false and

baseless and, therefore, no prima facie case is made out

against present applicants.

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

counsel for the complainant invited my attention towards

various documents including the enquiry report of the

Education Officer and submitted that appointments of

present applicants are contrary to the procedure laid down

for appointments. Their appointments were made without

obtaining prior approval for the said posts by the Education

Officer. An Advertisement was published when there was

prohibition for recruitment. Appointments were also made

                                                   .....8/-

Judgment

                                                     apl192.23 8 when posts were not approved.       The muster roll nowhere

shows their signatures as far as joining is concerned.

Thus, the entire investigation papers disclose that

there were no appointments of present applicants, but they

are shown to be appointed on the posts and thereby they

have obtained monetary gain and thus caused loss to the

society namely "Sevadas Shikshan Sanstha, Palodi" by which

the said school is run and they prayed for rejection of the

application.

1. On hearing both the sides and perusing the entire

investigation papers, it appears that the FIR came to be

lodged on the basis of the order passed by learned Magistrate

at Manora as the complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code wherein it is alleged that

"Sevadas Shikshan Sanstha, Palodi" runs the said school. The

Body of Directors was appointed as per order of the Charity

Commissioner. The said Body was not empowered to make

                                                       .....9/-

Judgment

                                                apl192.23 9 any change in administration of the said school. However,

accused persons shown to be appointed by the said Body of

Trustees without following the due procedure. It is further

alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 namely Bharat and

Ravindra appointed other co-accused Devichand Rathod who

was junior as a Headmaster.

It is further alleged that one Ganesh s/o Chandusingh

Chavhan, who was suspended Senior Clerk, has constituted

a Committee despite Administrator was appointed for

administration of the said school.

It is further alleged accused Nos.1 and 2 also

appointed accused No.6 Devichand Rathod as Headmaster

though he is junior. They have also appointed applicant No.1

Bharat Chavhan; applicant No.3 Vandana Chavhan; Roshan

Chauhan; Avinash Pandhre, and Sandip Khisurde as Junior

Clerk, Peon, and Teacher respectively when there was

prohibition to recruit employees. It is further alleged that

                                                 .....10/-

Judgment

                                                          apl192.23 10 these persons on the basis of bogus documents, got

themselves appointed and obtained monetary benefits by way

of salary and thereby committed an offence.

Learned Magistrate has considered the application and passed the

order directing the investigating officer to register the FIR

and investigate the matter. On the basis of the said direction,

the FIR came to be lodged against present applicants.

1. First objection raised by learned counsel for present

applicants is that, application under Section 156(3) of the

Code is not supported by the affidavit, which is mandatory

requirement. In support of his contention, he placed reliance

on the decision in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and anr supra wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered scope

of Section 156(3) of the CrPC and observed that, "when a

Magistrate receives a complaint he is not bound to take

cognizance if the facts alleged in the complaint disclose the

commission of an offence. The Magistrate has discretion in

                                                          .....11/-

Judgment

                                                     apl192.23 11 the matter. If on a reading of the complaint, he finds that the

allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and the

forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation

under Section 156(3) will be conducive to justice and save

the valuable time of the Magistrate from being wasted in

enquiring into a matter which was primarily the duty of the

police to investigate, he will be justified in adopting that

course as an alternative to taking cognizance of the offence

itself. As said earlier, in the case of a complaint regarding the

commission of cognizable offence, the power under [Section

156(3)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/833310/) can be invoked by the Magistrate before he takes

cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a). However,

if he once takes such cognizance and embarks upon the

procedure embodied in Chapter XV, he is not competent to

revert back to the pre-cognizance stage and avail of [Section

156(3)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/833310/).

1. The clear position in view of Section 153 is that any

Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence,

                                                     .....12/-

Judgment

                                                    apl192.23 12 can order investigation. If he does so, he is not to examine

the complainant on oath because he was not taking

cognizance of any offence therein. For the purpose of

enabling the police to start investigation it is open to the

Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR. There is

nothing illegal in doing so. After all registration of an FIR

involves only the process of entering the substance of the

information relating to the commission of the cognizable

offence in a book kept by the officer in charge of the police

station as indicated in Section 154 of the Code. Even if a

Magistrate does not say in so many words while directing

investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code that an FIR

should be registered, it is the duty of the officer in charge of

the police station to register the FIR regarding the cognizable

offence disclosed by the complainant because that police

officer could take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII

of the Code only thereafter.

.....13/-

Judgment

                                                    apl192.23 13

1. The Code gives power to the police to close a matter

both before and after investigation. A police officer can

foreclose an FIR before an investigation under Section 157 of

the Code, if it appears to him that there is no sufficient

ground to investigate the same. The section itself states that a

police officer can start investigation when he has "reason to

suspect the commission of an offence". Therefore, the

requirements of launching an investigation under [Section

157](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1773948/) of the Code are higher than the requirement under Section 154 of the Code.

1. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in paragraph No.26, in Priyanka Srivastava and anr supra, observed that, "at this

stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is

involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whim cannot

invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and

really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access

                                                    .....14/-

Judgment

                                                    apl192.23 14 to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when

pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellows

citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same."

In paragraph No.27, it is further observed that, "in our

considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported by an

affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the

invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in

an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well

advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of

the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more

responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of

applications are being filed in a routine manner without

taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain

persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming

when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders

under a statutory provision which can be challenged under

the framework of said Act or under Article 226 of the

                                                    .....15/-

Judgment

                                                    apl192.23 15 Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue

advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to

settle the scores. We have already indicated that there has to

be prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while

filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects

should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary

documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving

a direction that an the application under Section 156(3) be

supported by an affidavit so that the person making the

application should be conscious and also endeavour to see

that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit

is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in

accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke

the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That

apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same

can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being

had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled

to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere,

                                                    .....16/-

Judgment

                                                            apl192.23 16 matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences,

medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases

where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal

prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being

filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware

of the delay in lodging of the FIR."

1. In view of the above observations, whether complaint

application filed by the complainant satisfies the said test.

1. The copy of the application filed on record shows that the

application is filed by the complainant. Below that, verification is

given by the complainant. 4-5 lines are mentioned under the head

of "Pratidhnya Patra", which are reproduced as under:

"izfrKki=
eh izoh.k Hkksiflax tk/ko o; va- 30 o"kZ dke/kank% 'ksrh jk-
ikGksnh rk- ekuksjk ft- okf'ke lR; izfrKsoj dFku djrks dh
eh Hkk-n-fo ps dye 420] 465] 467] 468] 471 o 34
izek.ks fo|eku U;k;y;kr fQ;kZn nk[ky dj.ks ckcr vtZ
nk[ky djhr vlwu R;k vtkZrhy ijhPNsn dz- 1 rs 10 e/khy
loZ etdwj ek>;k ofdykauh eh fnysY;k ekfgrhizek.ks
lax.khd`r dsysyk vlwu rks eyk ejkBh Hkk"ksr letkowu

.....17/-

Judgment

apl192.23 17 lkafxryk- R;krhy loZ etdwj [kjk o cjkscj vkgs- djhrk
vkt fn- 14-07-22 jksth ok'khe eqDdkeh lgh dsyh vkgs- "
Learned counsel for the complainant and learned APP

for the State submitted that it is an affidavit in support of the

application filed by the complainant. An affidavit is

voluntary written statement of facts sworn or affirmed under

oath before an authorized official. The said affidavit does

not comply with requirement as an affidavit. As already

observed, an affidavit is a voluntary written statement of

facts. An affidavit under the Code is written sworn statement

of facts.

Thus, affidavit means sworn statement in writing

made especially under oath or an affirmation before an

authorized officer or magistrate. Though expression

"affidavit" has not been defined in the Code, it is considered

as declaration of facts made in writing sworn before a person

having authority to administer oath. Every affidavit should

be drawn up in the first person and should contain only facts

                                                       .....18/-

Judgment

                                                    apl192.23 18 and not inferences. The essential elements of an affidavit

are; it must be a declaration made by a person; it must relate

to facts; it must be in writing; it must be in the first person,

and must be sworn or affirmed before a Magistrate or any

other authorized officer. An affidavit should be confined to

such facts as the deponent is able to prove to his personal

knowledge. Rule 3(1) of Order XIX of CPC states that the

affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is

able of his own knowledge to prove, except on interlocutory

applications, on which statements of his belief may be

admitted; provided that the grounds thereof are stated.

1. In view of the above requirements, the affidavit given

below application by the complainant only states that the

contents of the application in paragraph Nos.9 to 10 are true

and correct as per his knowledge and belief.

Thus, it is similar to the verification given under the

application.

.....19/-

Judgment

                                                    apl192.23 19

1. As observed earlier, an affidavit is voluntary written

statement of facts sworn or affirmed under oath before an

authorized official. The said affidavit given under the

application does not comply with the same and, therefore,

contention of learned counsel for the complainant and

learned APP for the State, that it is an affidavit in support of

the complaint, is not sustainable.

1. Coming to the facts of the present case, as per

contention of the complainant, "Sevadas Shikshan Sanstha,

Palodi," a registered educational institution, runs the said

school. The present applicants are appointed without

following the due procedure and they have obtained

monetary benefits through these appointments. The report of

the Education Officer shows that without obtaining a prior

permission, these appointments were made. The allegation

against present applicants is also that they have committed

theft of some documents from the school. As far as this

allegation is concerned, it is not substantiated by the

                                                     .....20/-

Judgment

                                                 apl192.23 20 investigation material collected during the investigation as,

though the investigating officer has conducted search at the

house of present applicants, none of documents of the school

is found in their possession. Therefore, except bare words,

there is no evidence on record to show that they have

committed theft of documents from the said school.

1. Another allegation levelled against present applicants

is that appointments of present applicants are not as per the

procedure and the same were on the basis of bogus

documents. Neither the order passed by the Education

Officer nor any documents collected during the investigation

shows that their appointments are on the basis of bogus and

forged documents. The enquiry conducted and the order

passed by the Education Officer only show that without

advertising the posts, the said appointments are made.

Moreover, appointments were made during the prohibition

period and signatures of present applicants were not found

on the muster roll for some period.

.....21/-

Judgment

                                                    apl192.23 21

1. Thus, even accepting the said allegation as it is, it

nowhere discloses that there is an intention since inception

and, therefore, the offence punishable under Section 420 of

the IPC is not made out. The entire FIR or the investigation

papers nowhere shows that which documents exactly are

forged by present applicants.

It is alleged that promotion orders are forged documents,

but the order passed by the Education Officer nowhere shows

that the said appointments are on the basis of the forged

documents.

1. The ingredients of the offence of "cheating" are:

"1. Deception of a person by making false
representation which the maker knows or has
reason to believe is false and thereby

1. (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing such person: (i) to deliver any property to any person, or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property, or (b) Intentionally induces that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which

.....22/-

Judgment

apl192.23 22 act or omission causes or is likely to cause
damage or harm to that person in body, mind,
reputation or property."
22. Words "dishonestly" and "fraudulently" are defined as

follows:

"Dishonestly"-- Whoever does anything with the
intention of causing wrongful gain to one person
or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do
that thing "dishonestly".

"Fraudulently"-- A person is said to do a thing
fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to
defraud but not otherwise.
23. Section 23 of the IPC defines "wrongful gain",

which states that "wrongful gain" is gain by unlawful means

of property to which the person gaining is not legally

entitled. Whereas, "wrongful loss" is the loss by unlawful

means of property to which the person losing it is legally

entitled.

.....23/-

Judgment

                                                       apl192.23 23

1. After reading ingredients, in the backdrop of these

definitions, it is evident that, in order to attract the offence of

"cheating," a person must knowingly make a false statement

which would induce another to part with property or to do or

omit to do a thing which the latter would not do or omit

unless deceived and thereby is likely to suffer damage/harm

in body, mind, reputation or property.

1. In the case of Dr.Sharma's Nursing Home vs. Delhi

Administration and ors, reported in (1998)8 SCC 745, the

Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "mere deception by itself

would not constitute cheating unless the other essential

ingredient, i.e., dishonest inducement is established."

The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that, "...both

the learned courts have rested their findings on deception

only and did not go into the question whether the complaint

and its accompaniments disclosed the other essential

ingredient of the offence under Section 420 IPC, namely,

                                                       .....24/-

Judgment

                                                  apl192.23 24 dishonest inducement. "Dishonesty" has been defined in [Section 24](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/898393/) IPC to mean deliberate intention to cause

wrongful gain or wrongful loss; and when with such

intention, deception is practiced and delivery of property is

induced then the offence under Section 420 IPC can be said

to have been committed..."

1. In [Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and ors vs. State of

Bihar and anr](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/853800/), reported in (2000) 4 SCC 168, the Hon'ble

Apex Court has reiterated that, " Section 415 of the IPC

contemplates two distinct situations; the first where a person

is dishonestly induced to deliver property, and the second

where a person is induced to do or omit an act which, but for

the deception, he would not have done or omitted. In the

former, the inducement must be fraudulent or dishonest,

whereas in the latter it need only be intentional. Therefore,

intention is the gist of the offence.

.....25/-

Judgment

                                                   apl192.23 25

1. It is argued that present applicants have used fake

or forged documents to get the employment. However, the

entire chargesheet nowhere discloses that which documents

used by present applicants are forged. This allegation is

general, omnibus, and vague in nature.

1. To attract penal consequences, it must be shown

that the false representation was of a material fact which had

induced the other side to either part with property or act in a

manner which they would not otherwise do but for such false

representation. In the absence of such vital link between the

alleged false representation and the issuance of

recognition/renewal of affiliation, the essential ingredient of

offence is not satisfied.

1. Moreover, the entire investigation papers nowhere

shows that who has exactly prepared the said forged

documents.

.....26/-

Judgment

                                                   apl192.23 26

1. Thus, there is nothing on record to show that

present applicants have prepared the forged documents,

which is sine qua non to attract offence under Section 465 of

the IPC.

1. To attract offence under Section 465 of the IPC, the

prosecution must establish that the accused had made the

fake document. No material connecting the appellant to the

making of the fake document has been adduced in the

impugned chargesheet.

1. Similarly, offences under Sections 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC are also not attracted as the requisite mens

rea, i.e., dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to the

Education Department and wrongful gain to himself has not

been demonstrated as the issuance of the recognition was not

dependent on the production of the alleged forged NOC. At

the most, it can be said that, the appointments are not valid

one and for that purpose, another remedy is available to the

                                                    .....27/-

Judgment

                                                     apl192.23 27 complainant to raise his grievance before the appropriate

authority.

1. As already observed, the application, on the basis of

which the FIR came to be registered, is not supported with

the affidavit. Therefore, there is no compliance in view of

guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and anr vs. State of UP supra.

Similarly, from the entire chargesheet, ingredients of

offences under 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 read with 34 of

the IPC are also not made out. The entire chargesheet do not

disclose essential ingredients of "cheating or forgery" and,

therefore, the application deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:

ORDER

(1) The criminal application is allowed.
.....28/-

Judgment

                                                                             apl192.23 28 (2) FIR in connection with Crime No.283/2022 registered

                       with non-applicant No.1 police station for offences under [Sections 420](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1436241/), [465](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1317063/), [467](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1985627/), [468](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/556166/), and [471](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1466184/) read with 34 of the [IPC](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1569253/) and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing

                       RCC No.72/2025 pending on the file of learned JMFC, Court

                       No.2, Manora, district Washim are hereby quashed and set

                       aside to the extent of present applicant Nos.1 to 4 (Bharat s/

                       o Chandusingh Chavhan; Ganesh s/o Chandusingh Chavhan;

                       Vandana Bharat Chavhan, and Ravindra Mansingh Rathod).

Application stands disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

                       !! BrWankhede !!

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../-
Date: 16/03/2026 10:05:09