1 Cri.Appl.No.1269 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1269 OF 2010 Meenakshi d/o.Haridas Jamge, Age-35 years, Occu-Asst.Teacher, R/o.Ajay Nagar, Omerga, Dist.Osmanabad APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, 2. The Police Inspector, Omerga Police Station, Tq.Omerga, Dist.Osmanabad, 3. Shilpa W/o.Santosh Gulwe, Age-32 years, Occu- - R/o.A/p. Kem, Tq.Karmala, Dist.Solapur RESPONDENTS Mr.Ajay Shinde, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.G.R.Ingole, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. Mr.M.P.Tripathi h/f. Mr.P.B.Gapat, learned counsel for respondent no.3. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 25/04/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. In this application, Rule was issued on 02/07/2010, of which service was accepted by the learned A.P.P. and Mr.Tripathi, learned 2 Cri.Appl.No.1269 of 2010 counsel for original complainant/respondent no.3. 3. By the present application, the applicant, who is arrayed as accused no.6 in R.C.C.No.161/2099, pending on the file of J.M.F.C. Omerga, has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR bearing no. 31/1999, registered with Omerga Police Station, Tal.Omerga for the offence punishable u/s.420, 468, 471 r/w. 34 of The IPC. 4. I have heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.P.P. for State and learned counsel appearing for original complainant/respondent no.3. It is stated across the bar that on reading the paper advertisement about the admission process in Jijamata Hindi D.Ed. B.Ed College, Omerga, Dist.Osmanabad, respondent no.3 alongwith her father in law had been to the said institution for admission. After due inquiry, respondent no.3 took admission for B.Ed. Course, by depositing Rs.5,000/- towards tuition fees and agreed to pay the balance fees of Rs.15,000/- in installments. She had also paid Rs.400/- as “tachan”,Rs. 300/- towards the uniform and Rs.70/- as admission fees. It is further stated that later on necessary receipt was issued to her about payment of Rs.5,770/-, but it was back dated receipt, as the admissions were already opened in the month of July 1998. Later on respondent no.3 had been to her parental house, where she informed her father about her admission for B.Ed course. Her father told her that the institution, where she had taken the admission, is an un-authorized institution and not approved by the State of 3 Cri.Appl.No.1269 of 2010 Maharashtra. After knowing this fact, she sent her father for cancellation of her admission. Her father met the Principal by name Shri.Belambkar in the Institution, who informed her father that if the student/candidate, who had taken admission in the institution, apply for cancellation of admission, then in such circumstances, after deduction of the statutory fees, the Institution will refund the remaining fees to the student. Accordingly, Shri.Belambkar put remark on the application submitted on behalf of respondent no.3. Her father obtained photo copy of the application with remarks given by said Belambkar and then lodged complaint with the Education Department, Omerga. It is further stated that during the inquiry, it revealed that approval was granted to the Institution by the State of Karnataka, but the institution was not approved in the State of Maharashtra. As the respondent no.3 had paid Rs.5,770/- to the Institution, towards her admission, but the Institution had not refunded her, the complaint was lodged on 01/03/1999 with Omerga Police Station. In the said FIR, even though initially name of the present applicant was not appeared, at the time of remand, her name was arrayed as accused no.6. 5. During the course of submissions, it is urged across the bar that the applicant is also one of the victim, as even though she had served for 2 months in the institution, she has not received her salary for her services in the said Institution. It is not disputed either by learned A.P.P. or by respondent no.3 that the applicant was not the Member of Managing Committee of the said Institution or was 4 Cri.Appl.No.1269 of 2010 not a party to the admission process, who accepted the alleged charges from respondent no.3. During the investigation, statements of certain students were recorded, which disclose that for some time, the applicant was teaching Hindi subject in the Institution. Teaching a particular subject in an institution, is different from a membership of a Managing Committee, who is taking active participation in the admission process. The entire papers of investigation in the said CR do not disclose anywhere that the applicant was a member of the Managing Committee, and if it is so, the applicant can not be arrayed as a co-accused in the said crime. There is no prima facie case against the applicant. 6. In view of this, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ to the extent of present applicant only. Rule thus made absolute in the above terms. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/APRIL 2011/cri.appl.1269-10