(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