AMBADAS S/O. BALASAHEB VARHADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                                 (1)
                                                 915 Cri.WP-128.2020.odt
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD
     915 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 128 OF 2020

           AMBADAS S/O BALASAHEB VARHADE
                           VERSUS
       THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                …
           Mr. G.J. Kore, Advocate for the petitioner.
      Mr. A.S. Shinde, A.P.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 4.
        Mr. Jiwan Patil, Advocate for respondent No.5.
                                ...

                 CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                         VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                 DATED : 29 AUGUST 2026.

Per Court :

1.   Heard.

2.   The petitioner has filed this petition for following reliefs :

     “B)   By issuing writ of mandamus or any other
           appropriate writ or direction in like nature, the
           respondent No.1 to 4 may kindly be directed to
           register   the   offence    against    the   present
           respondent No.5 to 7 a per the provisions of
           Indian Penal Code and further recover the
           amount      of   Rs.3,96,09,399/-        from     the
           respondent No.5 to 7.

     C)    By issuing writ of mandamus or any other
           appropriate writ or direction in like nature, the
           respondent Nos.1 to 4 may kindly be directed to
           take appropriate action against the respondent
           No.5 as per the provisions of Maharashtra
           Public Records Act.
                                (2)
                                                   915 Cri.WP-128.2020.odt
    D)    By issuing writ of mandamus or any other
          appropriate writ or direction in like nature, the
          respondent Nos.1 to 4 may kindly be directed to
          consider the representation dated 20/06/2019,
          24/06/2019, 25/09/2019 and 20/12/2019
          filed by the petitioner”.

     Thus, the petitioner is asking for registration of the

offence against the present respondent Nos.5 to 7. However, in

the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.3, following facts

are mentioned.

   “11. I say and submit that, so far as the claim of the
         petitioner in respect of registration of the FIR
         against the Respondent No. 5 to 6 is concern at
         the outset no criminal intent or mens rea of the
         Respondent No. 5 to 6 has been transpires from
         the record or from the inquiry report and therefore
         no   FIR   has    been       registered    against     the
         Respondents No. 5 to 7. It is also necessary to
         consider here that the Respondent No. 5 has
         passed an order of the disbursement of the
         amount in the light of the law laid down by this
         Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 9411/2006 and G.R.
         dated 26/06/2006. I say and submit that by the
         reason of prime facie want of mens rea and
         absence of ill intention, the FIR has not been
         registered. I say and submit that, as such the
         reprimand has been issued and Departmental
         Enquiry has also been proposed against the
         Respondent No.5.
                                (3)
                                              915 Cri.WP-128.2020.odt
     12. I say and submit that, the so far as contention of
         the petitioner in respect of not taking action
         against the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 is concern,
         same is baseless and without any merit and same
         is evident from the above stated facts and
         circumstances. I humbly say and submit that, only
         because the FIR is not registered, the conclusion
         cannot be drawn that no action has been taken on
         the complaint of the petitioner. It is part of record
         that on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner,
         inquiry was conducted, reprimand has been
         issued to the Respondent No.5 and Departmental
         Enquiry has also been proposed against the
         Respondent No.5, the Respondent No. 6 has been
         terminated from the contractual service and
         recovery of disbursed amount has been directed
         in which notice of recovery was issued and in
         respect of the same status quo has been granted
         by this Court”.


      On going through the said contentions, action against

respondent Nos.5 and 6 is already taken, as mentioned.

3.    Further, the learned counsel for respondent No.5, on

instructions, submits that though the Departmental Enquiry

was initiated against respondent No.5, but the learned

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal ultimately set aside the

outcome of the said Departmental Enquiry observing that

there was no criminal intention of respondent No.5 in passing
                               (4)
                                            915 Cri.WP-128.2020.odt
the order of disbursement.    Learned A.P.P. also pointed out

that though the disbursement of amount was there in favour

of respondent No.7, but this Court in Writ Petition No. 346 of

2020, under order dated 08.01.2020, has already protected the

said amount by giving direction for not to withdraw the

amount.      According to him, the said writ petition is still

pending. In view of the same, we are not inclined to grant any

relief to the petitioner in respect of all the prayers of this

petition.    Accordingly, the criminal writ petition stands

dismissed.




(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)              (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
       JUDGE                                 JUDGE




VD_Dhirde