Bombay High Court
VEDPRAKASH P PANDEYversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The change of Secretary took effect from the resolution and the accepted Change Report, so the respondent was the Secretary and the magistrate’s order stands.
Summary
The petitioner, Vedprakash P. Pandey, challenged a Metropolitan Magistrate's order that denied his discharge under Section 239 of the CrPC in a case alleging cheating under Sections 416 and 419 of the IPC. The dispute centered on whether Respondent No.3, Jay Prakash P. Mishra, was the Secretary of the Uttar Bharatiya Education Society at the time he allegedly acted against the petitioner. The magistrate observed that the Change Report documenting the change of Secretary had been filed and accepted by the Charity Commissioner, and that under the Bombay Public Trusts Act a change takes effect from the date of the resolution, not from its recording. The High Court relied on precedents that affirmed this principle and held that the respondent was indeed the Secretary when the alleged acts occurred. Consequently, the court found no ground to interfere with the magistrate’s order and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the non‑filing of a Change Report with the Charity Commissioner defeats the claim that the respondent was not the Secretary of the Trust at the relevant time.
- Whether, under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, a change of office becomes effective only upon recording by the Charity Commissioner.
- Whether the Metropolitan Magistrate was correct in refusing to grant discharge under Section 239 of the CrPC.
- Whether documents obtained under the Right to Information Act can be used to establish that the respondent was not the Secretary.
Legislation cited
- Bombay Public Trusts Act — s. 22
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 239
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 416, 419, 426
- Right to Information Act
Subjects
- Criminal Procedure
- Section 239
- Cheating
- Public Trusts
- Change Report
- Bombay Public Trusts Act
- Writ Petition
- High Court
Judgment
10 WP-1187-2024.DOC
skt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2262 OF 2024
Vedprakash P. Pandey …Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of Maharashtra
2. Senior Police Inspector,
Borivali Police Station …Respondents
3. Jay Prakash P. Mishra
Mr. Durgesh Rege i/b Subodh N. Pathak, for the Petitioner.
Ms. M.R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent No. 1-State.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATE : 25th AUGUST, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Rege, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant
and Ms. Tidke, learned APP appearing for the State.
2. By this Writ Petition, the challenge is to the legality and
validity of the order dated 30th May, 2018 passed by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th Court, Borivali, Mumbai below
application (Exhibit 2) filed by the Respondent No. 3 under
Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking
discharge in C.C. No. 2602623/PW/2017 for the offences
Page 1 of 6
25th August, 2026
10 WP-1187-2024.DOC
skt
punishable under Section 416 and 419 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (“IPC”).
3. The contents of the charge-sheet are set out in paragraph
No. 5 of the impugned order dated 30 th May, 2018, which reads as
under :-
“5. I have gone through the charge-sheet. On
perusal of contents of the charge-sheet informant was
working as a teacher in the school of Trust.
Accordingly he was suspended from his service.
Present informant applied before the School Tribunal.
Thereafter he was removed from his service. It is not
disputed that this accused had signed document as a
Secretary of the Trust. According to contention of
prosecution since 1987 this accused is acting as a
Secretary of the Trust. Alleged disputed documents
were signed by the accused in the year 2008-2009.
Prior to that the informant not raised any objection.
According to contention of the informant he called
information under R.T.I. Act and came to know that
Page 2 of 6
25th August, 2026
10 WP-1187-2024.DOC
skt
Change Report was not submitted to concerned
authority. Even though Change Report was not
submitted to concerned authority nothing material is
on record to show. that at the time of signing said
document this accused was having intention to cheat
the informant. Furthermore Change Report is
accepted by the concerned authority with effect from
the date of resolution.”
4. Thus, the allegation of Respondent No. 3 – Complainant is
that he has taken action against the Petitioner, who at the relevant
time, was working as a Teacher in Uttar Bharatiya Education
Society at Sharada Estate, Vazira Naka, Borivali (West), Mumbai –
400092 (“the Trust”) purportedly in his capacity as the Secretary of
the Trust. The offence registered under Sections 426 and 419 of
the IPC is based on the allegation that Respondent No. 3 illegally
took action against Respondent No. 3 by representing himself to be
the Secretary of the said Trust. It is submitted by Mr. Rege, learned
counsel appearing for the Petitioner that pursuant to an application
made under the Right to Information Act, the Petitioner obtained
several documents from the office of the Charity Commissioner
Page 3 of 6
25th August, 2026
10 WP-1187-2024.DOC
skt
and, upon perusal thereof, found that Respondent No. 3 was not
the Secretary of the said Trust. It is on this basis of said
information the Petitioner lodged the F.I.R.
5. Perusal of the record shows that since the year 1987, the
Respondent No. 3 has been acting as the Secretary of the Trust.
Learned Metropolitan Magistrate has observed that merely because
Change Report was not submitted to the concerned authority, it
could not be said that accused acted with intention to cheat the
informant. In fact, the material on record shows that the action
against the present Petitioner has been taken by the Respondent
No. 3 in his capacity as Secretary of the Trust in the year 2008 and
2009 and in the yer 2010, Change Report has already been filed
before the Charity Commissioner and the same has been accepted.
The F.I.R. has been lodged on 5th September, 2015.
6. As per the settled legal position under the provisions of the
Bombay Public Trusts Act, a change takes effect upon the
occurrence of the legally valid event giving rise to such change and
is not dependent upon its subsequent recording by the Charity
Commissioner. In Chembur Trombay Education Society & Ors. v.
Page 4 of 6
25th August, 2026
10 WP-1187-2024.DOC
skt
D.K. Marathe & Ors.1, while considering the effect of Section 22 of
the Bombay Public Trusts Act, this court held that a change
brought about in accordance with law takes effect from the date of
the resolution or occurrence of the change and that the
proceedings before the Charity Commissioner are for the purpose
of reporting and recording such change. In the said decision
learned single judge further relied upon the decision of the
Supreme Court in Managing Committee, Khalsa Middle School Vs.
Mohinder Kaur2 .
7. In the present case, the Change Report has, in fact, has been
accepted. Therefore, even on merits, it cannot be said that, at the
time when Respondent No. 3 took action against the Petitioner in
his capacity as Secretary of the Trust, he was not the Secretary
thereof.
1 2002 (3) Bom CR 161
2 AIR 1993 S.C.W. 3006
Page 5 of 6
25th August, 2026
10 WP-1187-2024.DOC
skt
8. Thus, in these circumstances and under the writ jurisdiction
of this court, no interference in the impugned order is warranted.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page 6 of 6
25th August, 2026
Checking your session…