Thursday, 30, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Indusind Bank Pvt. Ltd. Amravati ... vs The Police Station Officer, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3062 Bom

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3062 Bom
Judgement Date : 16 February, 2021

Bombay High Court
Indusind Bank Pvt. Ltd. Amravati ... vs The Police Station Officer, ... on 16 February, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
                                                  1                Cr.APL No.810.16J

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.810 OF 2016

  IndusInd Bank Pvt. Limited,
  through its Branch Manager
  Vaibhav Shankarrao Arsad,
  Aged about 39 years, Second Floor,
  Samra Complex, Jaistambh Square,
  Amravati, Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
                                                                    .... APPLICANT.


                                   // VERSUS //


  1.     The Police Station Officer,
         Police Station Frezarpura,
         Amravati, Tq. & Distt. Amravati.

  2.     Vivek Sitaram Jawanjal,
         Age 44 years,
         R/o. Ashti, Tq. Bhatkuli,
         Distt. Amravati.                               .... NON-APPLICANTS


  Shri M. A. Vaishnav, Advocate for the applicant.
  Shri T. A. Mirza, A.P.P. for the non-applicant No.1.


                    CORAM : Z. A. HAQ AND AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
                    DATE       :    16.02.2021.

 ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER: Z. A. HAQ, J.]

  1.                Heard.


2. The IndusInd Bank Private Limited has filed this

application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

praying that the First Information Report bearing No.0827/2016

registered against unknown person for the offence punishable under

Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed.

3. According to the applicant, it had given loan to the

non-applicant No.2-Informant for purchasing vehicle and the non-

applicant No.2 -Informant had given 20 cheques to the applicant-

Bank for repayment of the amount of loan, that out of those

cheques, 13 cheques were dishonoured and then the applicant-Bank

had issued notice dated 04.05.2016 calling upon the non-applicant

No.2- Informant to pay the balance amount or action would be

taken regarding seizure of the vehicle, and then as the non-

applicant No.2- Informant failed to pay the amount, the vehicle of

the non-applicant No.2-Informant came to be seized through the

person authorized by the applicant-Bank.

4. The non-applicant No.2-Informant surprisingly filed

false report against unknown person suppressing all the above facts

on which the First Information Report came to be registered, and

apprehending action against the officers of the Bank, the applicant-

Bank filed the present application. Because of the interim order

granted by this Court on 30.11.2016, no coercive action is taken by

the police in the matter.

5. The learned Advocate for the applicant, at the time of

hearing referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of K. A. Mathai alias Babu & Anr. Vs. Kora

Bibbikutty & Anr. reported in (1996) 7 SCC 212, judgment given in

the case of Charanjit Singh Chada & Anr. Vs. Sudhir Mehra

reported in (2001) 7 SCC 417 and judgment given in the case of

Anup Sarmah Vs. Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors. in Special Leave

Petition (Cri.) No.8907/2009 and submitted that the applicant-

Bank and its officer has acted within the four corners of law and has

not committed any illegality, much less offence on the basis of which

the First Information Report could have been registered.

6. Though the non-applicant No.2-Informant is served,

none appears for him. We find substance in the submission made

on behalf of the applicant-Bank. This is a case of abuse of process

of law by a person who himself is dishonest and has not paid the

amount payable by him to the Bank.

7. Hence, we pass the following order :-

i. The First Information Report bearing No.0827/2016 registered with the non-applicant-Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed.

ii. The non-applicant No.2-Informant shall deposit amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with the Registry of this Court till 15.03.2021.

iii. If the amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) is deposited by the non-applicant No.2-Informant, Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only) shall be paid to the applicant-Bank and Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only) shall be paid to the Office of the Public Prosecutor, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.

If the amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) is not deposited by the non-applicant No.2-Informant with the Registry of this Court till 15.03.2021, the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue and the non-applicant No.1-Police Station Officer shall file compliance report on record of this Criminal Application till 03.05.2021.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

                               (AMIT B. BORKAR, J)                       (Z.A.HAQ, J)




RGurnule





 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter