OF 2013 Arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
3112 of 2006 before the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of the prosecution of the applicants appellants herein in Crime No.
For the said purpose, a scheme was framed by name Karamveer Dadasaheb Gaikwad Sabalikaran and Swabhiman Yojana Samiti.
The appellants, after perusing the revenue records of the said land purchased it from the Vendors by getting executed a registered sale deed.
Brief facts The Government of Maharashtra has published a Government Resolution on 02.06.2004 wherein it was informed to the public at large that the percentage of educated un employed amongst the Scheduled Caste and neo Buddhist are on the higher side and those who are below poverty line are required to work under different schemes and their standard of living is companysequently adversely affected.
92 of 2005.
In the companyplaint it was alleged that the accused had purchased the land from a dead person, namely, Ramesh Shikaji Jadhav, while the appellants were acting in their official capacity under the said Scheme.
On companying to know about the said publication, appellant No.
1 on 29.06.2005 made an enquiry and recorded the statements of the said eight Executants and on 02.07.2005 lodged a report in Ghatanji P.S. against them for an offence of impersonation and cheating.
On 15.09.2006, the appellants Madhao Rukhmaji Vaidya and Sau.
She was authorized by appellant No.1 to get the Sale deeds executed in favour of the Government of Maharashtra under the Scheme.
92 of 2005.
On 04.06.2005, A newspaper by name Tarun Bharat published an article in which it was alleged that the petitioners have purchased agricultural land showing Ramesh as alive while he was dead.
OF 2013 Arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
P.C. being Criminal Application No.
The High Court, by order dated 02.09.2009, dismissed the application.
88 of 2005.
Being aggrieved, he filed special leave petition No.
On 02.09.2009, after hearing the parties, the High Court dismissed the Criminal Application preferred by the appellants herein by holding that the procedure adopted and the power exercised by the Magistrate ordering investigation under Section 156 3 of Cr.
43 of the said property.
Sadhana Mahukar Yavalkar appellant No.2, a Warden at Government Hostel, Ghatanji, District Yavatmal was working as Assistant of appellant No.1 in the said Scheme.
Being aggrieved, he filed special leave petition No 7693 of 2009.
OF 2013 Arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
At the time of execution of sale deed, on 07.05.2005, an affidavit was sworn by the Vendors that they were residents of Mouza Koli Buzruq, Tahsil Ghatanji, District Yavatmal and were the owners of Gut No.
The said land was jointly owned by eight persons.
7332 of 2009.
As per the Scheme, a Committee was companystituted in each district and the Collector of the district was to act as Head of the Committee.
The said Scheme was made applicable with effect from 01.04.2004.
On 04.04.2005, the State Government purchased agricultural land situated at village Koli Bujruq.
As per the Scheme, land was to be purchased by the Government and was to be made available to the persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste and neo Buddhist who were below poverty line.
Learned Magistrate, by order dated 27.09.2005, directed the Police to investigate the matter under Section 156 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in short the Code and to submit a detailed report within one month.
7293 of 2009.
Saudhana Mahukar Yavalkar filed an application under Section 482 of Cr.
7332 of 2009 On 24.10.2006, another accused, namely, Omprakash Hiralal Jaiswal, Sub Registrar, also filed Criminal Application No.
92 of 2005.
It was further alleged that one Ramesh Shikaji Rathod had signed the sale deed as Ramesh Shika Jadhav.
Madhao Rukhmaji Vaidya Appellant No.1 herein while working as Special District Welfare Officer and Member Secretary of the Samiti under the Scheme, did several transactions under the supervision of District Collector, Yavatmal.
8 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
92 of 2005.
For the said reason, it was resolved that land should be made available to such people to create a source of income for them.
9 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
3526 of 2006 before the High Court seeking quashing of the prosecution in Crime No.
7293 of 2009 This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 02.09.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Application No.
7324 of 2009.
11 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
The High Court, by order dated 02.09.2009, dismissed the application.
Being aggrieved, he filed special leave petition No.
On 07.07.2005, the officials of Ghatanji P.S. registered offences punishable under Sections 420, 419, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short IPC for the acts of fraud, criminal breach of trust and impersonation against the said accused persons vide Crime No.
P.C. is just and proper.
92 of 2005 against the appellants herein, Sub Registrar and few more persons.
Being aggrieved, appellants herein filed SLP No.
7324 of 2009 On 27.09.2006, one of the accused, namely, Akash Dattatraya Marawar A 1 , business man, also filed Criminal Application No.
3112 of 2006 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein while companyfirming the order dated 27.09.2005, passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ghatanji in Criminal Complaint Case No.
10 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
OF 2013 Arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
On 09.09.2005, one Rajnikant Deluram Borele, claiming himself to be a Social Worker, filed a Criminal Complaint in the companyrt of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ghatanji, which was registered as Case No.
3242 of 2006 before the High Court seeking quashing of the prosecution in Crime No.
Sathasivam,J. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.
