MADOLAYYA SAGAYYA MATHPATI AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

                                               -1-
                                                                   criappln3733.24.2.odt

     ( This order is modified and uploaded vide speaking to the minutes order dated 07.09.2026)


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3733 OF 2024

1.        Madolayya Sagayya Mathapati

2.        Dagadu s/o Baliram Girbane

3.        Ramesh s/o Dadarao Bagdure

4.        Rajesh Vishwanathappa Valande

5.        Matin Nabisab Alandkar

6.        Kishanrao Veerappa Bhingole (Reddy)

7.        Shivajirao s/o Manikrao Jadhav                            .. Applicants


versus


The State of Maharashtra & another                                  .. Respondents


                                   WITH
                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3735 OF 2024


1.        Rajesh Vishwanathappa Valande

2.        Madolayya Sagayya Mathapati

3.        Dagadu s/o Baliram Girbane

4.        Ramesh s/o Dadarao Bagdure

5.        Matin Nabisab Alandkar
                                 -2-
                                                criappln3733.24.2.odt


6.    Kishanrao Veerappa Bhingole (Reddy)

7.    Shivajirao s/o Manikrao Jadhav             .. Applicants

versus

The State of Maharashtra & another               .. Respondents

Mr. N. P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for the State.
Mr. S. B. Gastgar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.


                          CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                     RESERVED ON : 27.08.2026
                   PRONOUNCED ON : 04.09.2026


ORDER :



1.    Both these applications involve similar set of facts so also being

arising out of the properties of one trust, by consent of both sides,

heard and finally decided together.



2.    In Criminal Application No. 3733/2024, the Applicants are

seeking quashment of First Information Report No. 278/2023

registered with Aurad Shahajani Police Station, District Latur, on

12.12.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409,

420,468, 472, 120B r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
                                  -3-
                                                 criappln3733.24.2.odt

3.    First Information Report lodged by Sundarlal Ramnivas Darak

alleges against the then and present trustees of Shardopasak

Shikshan Sanstha, a Trust, for not protecting the interest of the trust

in respect of the property at Survey No. 106 by selling/allotting the

said land by effecting plotting therein to the employees of the trust for

Rs. 6,000/- only.    There is allegation that in respect of the said

transaction, mis-appropriation has been committed. It is alleged that

without seeking prior permission/sanction of Charity Commissioner,

40 plots were sold by executing sale-deeds in January 1997. It is

further alleged that though the said plots were allotted/sold to the

employees of the trust for the reason that they had no arrangement

of residence at that place, however, number of employees sold the

said plots to third party without seeking permission of the trust. It is

also alleged that the original layout of the plot was for 40 plots and

plot No. 32 is green belt. There is allegation that by preparing bogus

layout, 4 plots i.e. plot Nos. 42 to 45 were created and the same were

sold. The sale-deeds in respect of all plots were executed in the year

1997 and 2003. Post facto permission/sanction was sought from the

Charity Commissioner which came to be granted by order dated

21.12.2020 passed in CC No. 31/2019. However, it was partial post

facto sanction granted only for the reason that in case permanent
                                -4-
                                               criappln3733.24.2.odt

structures are constructed on the said plots, there would be loss to

the purchasers. It was directed to the trustees to recover the other

plots wherein there is no permanent construction done. It is claimed

that this order has become final now.



4.    In Criminal Application No. 3735/24, first informant Sundarlal

lodged report in respect of mis-appropriation of property at Survey

No. 192 which came to be purchased by the trust on 13.04.1998

from Pandurang Patil vide registered sale-deed No. 726. The said land

admeausring 14 R was sold in the year 2013 without seeking

sanction of the Charity Commissioner. There is allegation that out of

the said land, 10030 sq. ft. land was sold by sale-deed No.

3170/2013 to Chungud Santan Thakur for Rs. 7,00,000/- though its

market value is Rs. 8,40,000/-.    Similarly, remaining 5100 sq. ft.

land was sold to same person vide registered sale-deed No.

3233/2013 on 04.10.2023 for Rs. 3,00,000/-. It is alleged that in

respect of both the transactions, trust has not received consideration

since it is mentioned therein that the amount of consideration was

already received in cash. Thus, there is allegation with regard to the

mis-appropriation of trust property. It is also claimed that the said

transaction came to be effected in the year 2013 however, mutation
                                -5-
                                               criappln3733.24.2.odt

in respect of the same was not taken until 2020 in order to ensure

that the transaction is not made known to others.      This Criminal

Application came to be filed challenging order passed by the learned

Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure and

registration of offence vide Crime No. 277/2023.



5.    Learned Counsel for Applicants submits that in Criminal

Application No. 3733/2024, First Information Report came to be

lodged in the year 2023 by making grievance in respect of the

resolution passed by the trustees in the year 1992. It is claimed that

in fact, the fathers of Sundarlal Darak as well as the intervenor

Ravindra Gastagar were trustees of the said trust and were party to

the resolutions in question. It is contended that after their death,

their heirs with malafide intention have lodged complaint against the

present trustees in order to cause harassment to them.           It is

contended that as far as resolution of the year 1992 is concerned,

except for Applicant No. 6 – Kishanrao Veerappa Bhingole (Reddy), no

other Applicant was signatory or party to the said resolution. It is

claimed that in any case, execution of sale-deed has not been done by

present Applicants and as such they are not responsible for the said

transaction.   It is claimed that Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are the
                                  -6-
                                                 criappln3733.24.2.odt

employees in the trust, who purchased the plots and hence they

cannot be held responsible for alleged mis-appropriation of the

property of the trust or for not obtaining previous sanction before

effecting sale of the trust property. He further argued that witnesses

of the sale-deeds cannot be made as accused as they don’t carry any

responsibility of contents of the documents. It is claimed that some

of the Applicants became trustees in the year 2011 and as such they

had no concern with the previous transfers of plots allegedly effected

in the years 1992 and 2003.       He further argued that the present

intervenor had moved proceeding under Section 41D of Maharashtra

Public Trust Act against the trustees making allegations against them

with regard to the mis-appropriation of the trust property and fund.

By   order   dated   03.11.2021    passed   by    the   Joint   Charity

Commissioner, it is held that there is no mis-appropriation

committed by the trustees nor any pecuniary benefits were drawn by

them. This order came to be confirmed by the Division Bench of this

Court in Writ Petition No. 488/2019 vide order dated 09.02.2023. As

far as Criminal Application No. 3733/2024 is concerned, it is his

submission that the learned Magistrate has passed order without

application of mind to the facts and in casual manner and to buttress
                                  -7-
                                                criappln3733.24.2.odt

this submission, he took this Court through the order passed under

Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure.



6.      To support these submissions reliance is placed on following

judgments :-

(i)     Priyanka Shrivastava and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
        and others, (2015) 6 SCC 287
(ii)    Basavraj s/o Vishwanathappa Valande vs. The State of
        Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 3901/2024
(iii)   Narayan Kalba Gaikwad and another vs. The State of
        Maharashtra and another, Criminal Application No. 3895/2017



7.      Learned APP and learned Counsel for the informant/intervenor

opposed the Applications by submitting that even if it is accepted for

the sake of arguments that some of the Applicants were not trustees

at the relevant time of passing of the resolution, they are

beneficiaries of the agreements.    It is contended that in any case,

Applicant No. 6 Kishanrao Veerappa Bhingole (Reddy), was trustee at

the relevant time so also at present he is the trustee and as such

proceeding cannot be quashed against him. In this regard, it is their

further submission that Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are the beneficiaries

of the said transaction being teachers and as such they are rightly

arraigned as accused herein. In this regard reference is made to the
                                 -8-
                                                 criappln3733.24.2.odt

report of the Extension Officer indicating that the sale of Plot Nos. 42

to 45 is illegal and, without there being any sanction of layout to that

effect. Reference is made to order dated 05.12.2023, passed by the

Judicial Magistrate First Class, indicating that Applicant Nos. 1 and

2 were witnesses in respect of sale of these plots i.e. plot Nos. 42 to

45.    Learned Counsel for the informant/intervenor submits that

already criminal revision has been filed before the Sessions Court

against the order dated 05.12.2023 and for the purpose of

quashment of First Information Report, instant Petitions are filed

which, according to them, are not maintainable.             It is their

submission that resolutions in the year 1992 were tampered in the

year 2020 while obtaining post facto sanction for the sale and which

has been observed by the Charity Commissioner in order dated

21.12.2020. It is submitted that having regard to these facts, it is

not    open for this Court to quash First Information Report

No.278/2023.



8.     Reference is made to following case law to buttress above

submissions :-

(i)    A. R. Antulay vs Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and another
       (1984) 2 Supreme Court Cases 500
(ii)   Suresh Bhagwanrao Puri and another vs. State of
                                  -9-
                                                criappln3733.24.2.odt

        Maharashtra and others, 2017(2) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 281
(iii)   Kathyayini vs. Sidharth P. S. Reddy and others
        2025 SCC OnLine SC 1428


9.      Insofar as contention of the contesting Respondents about

maintainability of present Applications on the ground o pendency of

the Revision Applications before Sessions Courts is concerned, there

is no embargo for Applicants to invoke provisions of Section 482 of

Code of Criminal Procedure. Needless to say that in view of the order

passed in the present Applications, consequences shall follow.

Suffice it to say that this Court finds no justification for not

entertaining the Applications.



10.     At the first blush, it may appear that the complainant and

intervenor only after death of their father invoked the provisions of

criminal law in order to harass the Applicants.          It is however

pertinent to note that apart from the fact that it is contention of

complainant that he came to know about the crime after going

through the documents, there are observations made by learned

Charity Commissioner in order dated 21.12.2020 in CC 31/2019.

The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced as herein

below :-
                           - 10 -
                                           criappln3733.24.2.odt

“19. The above facts further finds support from one
another circumstance, two affidavits were filed prior to
lockdown in this case, which are below list Exh. 24A at
Page Nos. 52 & 55. The affidavit is one of Mr. Ramniwas
Balkisan   Darak    and   another   of   Mr.   Basavrajappa
Vaijnathappa Gastagar. Both the affidavits are to the effect
that the bold portion of resolution No. 4 referred above was
not the resolution passed in the meeting dt. 16-6-1992.
The names of the above two deponents do appear in the
copy of resolution produced by the applicant as the
signatures at Sr.No. 2 and Sr.No. 4. Their signatures in the
resolution can be compared prima facie under section 73 of
the Evidence Act from the affidavits filed by them. An
argument was made by Ld. Counsel Shri Gunale that
these deponents expired during the lockdown, therefore,
they are not available for cross-examination, therefore,
their affidavits cannot be read as evidence. Though the
submission is lucrative at the first blush. But, the Ld. Adv.
for objector submitted that the second deponent Shri
Gastagar expired on 4 August 2020 and the first deponent
expired on 25-10-2020. Such a statement of dead person
is relevant under section 32 Clause 7 and clause 8 of the
Evidence Act. It cannot be disputed that they are no more
available for cross-examination. But, overall circumstances
and the relevancy of the above deponents affidavits under
clause 8 of Section 32 of the Evidence Act, cannot be
disputed with. Even if, not accepted, as is deposed, but the
circumstance that they did make such affidavits supports
                           - 11 -
                                           criappln3733.24.2.odt

the objector. Even otherwise. if the above affidavits are not
considered, yet the resolution in itself considered with the
documents at page No. 40 and 41 in respect of meeting
allocating plots on 29-04-1992 prior to the resolution itself
makes the resolution vulnerable, and gives a straight
conclusion that the resolution is nothing but a tampered
document to be an eye wash in an attempt to show that
the resolution was infact passed on 16-06-1992. It is
further important to mention that the notice mentioning the
agenda for the meeting dt. 16-6-1992 on which date the
alleged resolution was passed as by the applicant, is not
produced on record. Therefore adverse inference needs to
be drawn on this point that the notice infact did not
contain such an agenda. Otherwise, that would have been
surely filed on record after the objection was raised,
initially by five persons in proceeding under section 41D
and thereafter, at the time of filing of the present
application. From the above facts, I hold that the resolution
is nothing but a tampered version as is contended by the
objector.


20. Now, if the resolution itself is tampered and if the
original version of the resolution is itself considered
without the bold portion, which is nothing but an
interpolation and tampering by way of insertion and
scoring of two words to match with the original version,
Then there was no resolution to sell of 40 plots, infact
passed by the trustees as is tried to be shown. In absence
                           - 12 -
                                           criappln3733.24.2.odt

of such resolution, neither the clause (a), (b), (c), (f) of
Section 36 (5) be said to be meted out in the present case.
Even otherwise, if there was an emergent situation, there
must be some documents produced on record to show that
on or prior to 16-6-1992, the rooms of Sharda Sadan were
dilapidated, so much, so that, it was an emergent need to
construct it. No such document is forthcoming. There is no
estimate produced on record on or prior to 16-6-1992
showing that what was the estimate required for such
construction,   what   would   be   the   nature   of   such
construction, what was the compelling necessity for such
construction, what was the strength of the students and
classes for which without those rooms, being constructed it
was not possible to run the school. No application from the
staff demanding land of the trust contending that they
were having no houses is available on record, which is one
of the grounds in the present application. The contention
that no staff was ready to work and they were facing
difficulty for residential houses, which was affecting the
running of the school, and therefore, such decision was
made. This contention is nothing but a smoke screen.
Because, the institution is from 1972, the school was
already running since 1972 up to 1992, the staff was
working, which cannot be possible for some or another
accommodation for the staff. Moreover, it is for the staff
seeking a job to make arrangement for his residence. It
was not the obligation on the trust to say that it was
compelling necessity of the trust. Furthermore, some of the
                                  - 13 -
                                                   criappln3733.24.2.odt

      staff to whom the plots were allotted out of 39 residences
      or lands in er their 13 persons were having own names or
      in their family members, as can be seen from the
      documents filed below list Exh. 18 which are assessments,
      issued by the Gram Panchayat, Aurad Shahajani. This
      falsifies the contention that the trust was under compelling
      circumstances to fulfil the need of the staff.”



      In operative part of the order in Clause (iv) it is held thus :-

       “The above permission in clause (i) and (ii) above, shall
       be subject to that condition, the trustees who are
       signatories of the alleged resolution dt. 16-06-1992
       except the deceased, reimburse from their own funds, 2
       Acres of land to the trust, within a period of two
       months from the date of order, as requested in Exh. 26.”



11.   Above observations indicate that the allegation is not only in

respect of sale of subject property by passing resolutions in question

and contrary to the provisions of Maharashtra Public Trust Act,

however, there is also allegation that there has been tampering done

with the said resolution. Apart from this, there are observations

made in respect of plot Nos. 42 to 45 and it is recorded about there

being no sanction for creation of these plots.
                                 - 14 -
                                                  criappln3733.24.2.odt

12.   No doubt, the Joint Charity Commissioner in Applications

under Section 41D of the Act bearing No. 87/2017 and 186/2018

filed by the complainant and intervenor passed order dated

03.11.2021 wherein it is held that there is no mis-appropriation of

the funds of the trust nor any pecuniary benefits are drawn by the

trustees. The relevant observations in the said order read thus :-

      32.   It is admitted that the respondents have purchased the
      property in Survey No. 106 from one Shivkumar Mandage
      family by virtue of sale-deed dated 18.09.1990 copy of which
      is at Exh. 09 and thereafter converted the land for non-
      agricultural purposes.   It is also admitted that by making
      plots for residential purposes, these plots wee allotted by a
      lottery system to the teaching and non-teaching staff working
      in the educational institutions of the Trust. The said fact is
      admitted by AW-1 Mallikarjun Shankad (Exh. 79) in his cross-
      examination. It is true that it is not the responsibility of the
      employer to provide residence to their employees. However,
      as per the demand of staff members, the respondents made
      plots in Survey No. 106 and distributed the same to the staff
      members and as such the registered sale-deeds were
      executed in favour of teaching and non-teaching staff, the
      certified copies which are filed at Exh. 11 to 13, 104 and 105.
      On perusal of the said sale-deeds, it seems that the said plots
      were sold by respondent No. 1 on behalf of the Trust being
      president and not showing himself as his personal plots.
      Hence, the argument of the applicants that respondent No. 1
                            - 15 -
                                              criappln3733.24.2.odt

sold out these plots by posing himself as his personal
property, does not hold substance. This fact is raised in
Application    No.   CC/31/2019      before    Hon’ble   Charity
Commissioner.     No misappropriation of said Trust property
seen on the face of record as the said property is utilized for
the welfare of staff working in the units run by the Trust as
observed by the Hon’ble Charity Commissioner, Mumbai as
there is no evidence to show that the trustees have derived
any pecuniary or other benefits.


33.   So far as the Trust property bearing Survey No. 106
adm. 2 Acre 30 Guntha is a concern, as stated earlier, the
respondents got ex-post-facto permission from Hon’ble Charity
Commissioner regarding said sell transaction by order dated
21.12.2020 in Application No. CC/31/2019.           In the said
judgment, the Hon’ble Charity Commissioner held that the
trustees I..e present respondents have not derived any
pecuniary or other benefits from the sale transaction of Trust
property bearing Survey No. 106. In the deposition of all the
witnesses examined by the applicants stated that the
respondents have misappropriated the Trust property bearing
Survey no. 106 by selling it without prior permission of this
Authority.    the respondents got ex-post-facto permission for
said sell transaction. Therefore, it cannot be said that while
selling out the said property in Survey no. 106, the
respondents/trustees have got personal benefit or illegal gain
for their own profits. In this regard the applicants examined
AW 4 Shivkumar Mandage is at Exh. 84 of application No.
                                 - 16 -
                                                criappln3733.24.2.odt

      87/2017 who clearly admitted in his cross-examination that
      he sold the property in Survey No. 106 to the Trust, he came
      to know about the present matter by reading news in the
      newspaper and nothing more is known to him about the said
      property after sold out by him.       Hence, the allegations
      regarding the Trust property bearing Survey No. 106 of village
      Aurad Shahajani cannot be considered.


13.   Thus, this order passed by the Charity Commissioner indicates

otherwise than the order passed by Charity Commissioner in CC No.

31/2019.    This Court, therefore, is unable to give any special

weightage to any of these orders. Suffice it to say that observations

in the order dated 21.12.2020 and more particularly operative part

clause (iv) attributes offence/illegality against signatories to the

resolution. Therefore, in Criminal Application No. 3733/2024, except

for Applicant No. 6 rest of the Applicants not being 0trustees and

signatories to the resolution at the relevant time, cannot be held

responsible for the said resolution and consequent action thereupon.



14.   Insofar as the allegations with regard to sale of Survey No. 192

admeasuring 14 R in Criminal Application No. 3735/2024 is

concerned, in the resolution passed in 2013, Applicant Nos. 4, 6 and

7 were parties/signatories.    In respect of sale of the said land,
                                - 17 -
                                               criappln3733.24.2.odt

application for post facto sanction is rejected by the Charity

Commissioner. Further, from the recitals of sale deeds in question,

there is reason to believe that the consideration towards sale of said

properties has not been accounted to trust. In the circumstances,

the trustees who were party to resolution along with deceased

trustees were responsible for the same. Thus, prima facie, offence is

made out against the trustee who were alive and signatories to the

said resolution.



15.   As far as employees who are allotted plots are concerned, they

cannot be considered to be party to the alleged collusion with the

trustees as the Charity Commissioner has accepted the fact that the

trustees have allotted said plots to the employees and wherever

construction was carried out, those transactions are protected. It is

open for trust to reclaim other plots wherein construction has not

been carried out as held by Charity Commissioner.



16.   The Applicants who are witnesses to the agreement are

concerned, it is settled position of law as observed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Hemkunwar Bai vs. Sumersingh and

others, Civil Appeal No. 8827/2011, the witness is not responsible
                                - 18 -
                                                criappln3733.24.2.odt

for the contents of the document and in such circumstances, the

criminal proceeding against the witnesses to the document also

cannot proceed. With regard to the submissions on the order passed

by learned Magistrate it needs to be appreciated that there is every

possibility of over lapping of facts considering peculiarity thereof.

More particularly, when the complaints/applications came to be

decided together, such over lapping may occur. However, that does

not mean that learned Magistrate has failed to apply judicial mind to

the facts of the case. This Court, therefore, finds no justification to

allow Applications on that ground.



17.   In the facts of the case, even if the material on record is

accepted to be correct, no offence is made out against the Applicants

except for those who were trustees at the relevant time and were

party to the resolutions in question. The case of these Applicants,

therefore, is squarely covered by the principles laid down by Hon’ble

Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal

and others, 1992 SCC (SUPP) 1 335.



18.   In view of the above discussion, both Applications stand partly

allowed. Criminal Application No. 3733/2024 stands allowed except
                             - 19 -
                                            criappln3733.24.2.odt

for Applicant No. 6 Kishanrao Veerappa Bhingole (Reddy). So also,

Criminal Application No. 3735/2024 stands allowed except for the

Applicant No. 4 – Ramesh Dadarao Bagdure, Applicant No. 6 –

Kishanrao Veerappa Bhingoli (Reddy) and Applicant No. 7 –

Shivajirao Manikrao Jadhav. Criminal Application No. 3733/2024

stands allowed qua rest of the Applicants in terms of prayer

clauses ‘C’ and ‘C2’ and Criminal Application No. 3735/2024

stands allowed qua rest of the Applicants in terms of prayer

clauses ‘C’ and ‘C1’.



                                             ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

dyb