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 3. Jay Prakash P. Mishra …Respondents 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 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 30th 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 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 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. 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 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.] 25th August, 2026