MAHADEO BAJIRAO GIRIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                     55. APL-1688-24.odt


Amberkar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                          CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1688 OF 2024

           Mahadeo Bajirao Giri                             .. Applicant
                      Versus
           The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                  .. Respondents
                                       ....................
            Mr. Abhishek R. Avachat a/w Mr. Indrajeet Jagdale, Mr. Sushant
             Jadhav & Mr. Siddhant Deshpande i/by Mr. Dhananjay K. Bhosale,
             Advocates for Applicant
            Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for State
            Mr. Ashok Gawari, Police Inspector, ACB, Pune
                                          ...................
                                         CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                         DATE          : OCTOBER 9, 2026
           P. C.:

           1.       Heard Mr. Avachat, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr.

           Karmakar, learned APP for State.


           2.       Present Application seeks quashing of FIR bearing No. 304 of

           2002 registered with Sangvi Police Station, Pune and further

           proceedings in the form of chargesheet bearing Spl. Case No. 418 of

           2024 arising out of the said FIR for the offences punishable under the

           provisions of Sections 7, 7a read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 12

           of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B of

           IPC.


           3.       There are three accused persons in the present crime. Accused

           No. 1 is the Asstt. Superintendent, District General Hospital, Aundh;


                                                                                 1 of 6
                                                       55. APL-1688-24.odt


accused No. 2 is the Civil Surgeon, District General Hospital, Aundh

and accused No. 3 is the present Applicant before me who is working

as an Administrative Officer in the District General Hospital, Aundh.


4.    Complainant is the Marketing Executive at Image Sense

Diagnostic Centre at Shikrapur which is falling within the jurisdiction

of the District General Hospital, Aundh and had made an Application

dated 11.05.2022 seeking renewal of the license of the Diagnostic

Centre namely for Sonography Centre license to accused No. 1. Since

the said renewal was not granted, the Complainant met accused No. 1

who demanded an amount of Rs. 40,000 as bribe for issuing the

license.


5.    The Complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB)

who laid a trap and on the given date that is on 06.07.2022, the

Complainant approached accused No. 1 and the said accused No. 1

was caught red-handed accepting the bribe of Rs. 12,000 from the

Complainant by the officers of the ACB. Panchnama was done and the

present case was filed. However, at the time of accepting the said

amount of Rs. 12,000, rather before accepting the same, accused No. 1

made a phone call to Accused Nos. 2 & 3. The transcript of the phone

call between accused No. 1 and accused No. 3 is appended at page

Nos. 115 & 116 of Application.         Said transcript is the part of




                                                                   2 of 6
                                                         55. APL-1688-24.odt


panchnama which is part of the chargesheet and placed before the

Court.


6.       Mr. Avachat has persuaded me to consider the said transcript for

seeking exoneration of the present Applicant who is arraigned as

accused No. 3. He would submit that by virtue of the said transcript, it

is not established that accused No. 3 i.e the Applicant is in any way

involved in getting any share in the alleged bribe amount which is

forming part of the conversation between accused No. 1 and accused

No. 3. Prima facie, Mr. Avachat is incorrect when he states so. The

transcript between accused No. 1 and accused No. 3 clearly hinges on

the bribe amount of Rs. 40,000 though the word 'thousand' is not

mentioned while having a conversation by the parties. The

conversation is in Marathi language. It is unambiguous and clear. The

repeatedness with which the figures are mentioned in the transcript

three times consecutively itself prima facie shows the complicity of the

Applicant in the crime. What is more crucial is that the Applicant by

repeatedly seeking not to answer or avoiding the question with regard

to the bribe amount brought by the Complainant is repeatedly trying

to avoid conversation regarding the amount             but unsuccessful.

However, ultimately on realizing that the accused No. 1 desires an

answer whether to accept part of the bribe amount brought by the

Complainant, the Applicant immediately tells him that he will now call


                                                                     3 of 6
                                                           55. APL-1688-24.odt


him on    WhatsApp which prima facie shows his complicity in the

crime, since WhatsApp phone call is encrypted and transcript of any

conversation therein on a call cannot be engrossed.


7.    Though Mr. Avachat would persuade me to look at the transcript

of the next call also, I do not think it is necessary for me to go into that

aspect for determining the present Application of the Applicant

seeking quashing of the FIR against him. The complicity, conspiracy

and involvement of the Applicant is prima facie seen and evident from

the answers which he gives and the transcript which is placed before

the Court. The name of the Diagnostic Centre is clearly stated.

Acknowledgment by Applicant - accused No. 3 is specifically given.

The discussion about Rs. 40,000 (though word 'thousand' is not

mentioned) is clearly evident and acknowledged by the Applicant.


8.    Further when the Applicant is informed about the Complainant

bringing 50% of the aforesaid amount on three occasions repeatedly,

the Applicant attempts to ward off the conversation and tells him to

talk tomorrow without committing anything but on being informed

that the Complainant is standing outside the Chamber of the accused

No. 1 at the very moment with part of the amount immediately the

Applicant informs him that within one minute he will make a

WhatsApp call. This itself shows clear complicity and conspiracy for




                                                                       4 of 6
                                                                 55. APL-1688-24.odt


receiving the bribe amount which does not enure to the benefit of the

Applicant.


9.       Mr. Avachat would persuade me to consider that the indictment

of the Applicant is merely on the basis of the statement of co-accused.

Unfortunately, such a submission is not available to the Applicant

before me. It is not the co-accused statement but the specific transcript

of conversation between the two accused persons where a clear

acknowledgment is given by the Applicant which is in place and

therefore the said transcript statement of the conversation which has

been placed before me at page Nos. 115 and 116 is on a much higher

footing than a mere confessional statement of the co-accused person.

None of the decisions which are relied upon by Mr. Avachat would

come to the aid of the Applicant since the complicity of the Applicant

in the present crime is not only prima facie proved on the basis of the

transcript but the fact that he is proximate to the issue in question and

working as an Administrative Officer in the same department where

the renewal of license is required to be done and that itself shows that

he     was     involved        in   the   conspiracy   to   receive   the    bribe.

Hence, reliance on the decisions in the case of Karan Talwer v. State of

Tamil Nadu1; Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani v. State of




1    2024 SCC OnLine SC 3803

                                                                             5 of 6
                                                                                        55. APL-1688-24.odt


           Maharashtra2 and Dhruv Dalip Tahil v. State of Maharashtra3 by Mr.

           Avachat cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case.


           10.       This is a case where the Court cannot allow exoneration and

           quashing of a charge sheet as the prima facie involvement of the

           Applicant is clearly revealed on the basis of his own conversation with

           the co-accused person. Once that is the position, the offence calls for

           adjudication and trial. In that view of the matter, Application stands

           dismissed.


Amberkar                                                        [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

                      Digitally signed
                      by RAVINDRA
           RAVINDRA MOHAN
           MOHAN    AMBERKAR
           AMBERKAR Date:
                      2026.10.09
                      21:12:57 +0530




           2     (1998) 7 SCC 337
           3     Order dated 09.06.2025 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 183 of 2024

                                                                                                    6 of 6