Bombay High Court
Pravin Dashrath Sawnt vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 20 August, 2025
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2025:BHC-AS:35936-DB
wp 6325-19.revised.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
LAXMI
SUBHASH
SONTAKKE
WRIT PETITION NO. 6325 OF 2019
Digitally signed by
LAXMI SUBHASH
SONTAKKE
Date: 2025.08.21
12:22:06 +0530
Pravin Dashrath Sawnt
Aged about: 42 years,
Occ: Service,
R/of: Flat No. 801, Kinjal Paradise,
Plot No. 43, Sector No.35/D,
Near Ganesh Manidr, Kharghar. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
(Through Virar Police Station)
2. Vikas Sitaram Bankar,
Age: Adult, Occ: Service,
R/of: 105/B, Besides Ayyapa Temple,
Jaspaer Co-Op. Hsg. Soc., Stella,
Vasai West, Tal. Vasai, Dist, Palghar.
The Cluster Legal Manager,
at Motilal Oswal Home Finance Ltd.
Virar East Branch. .. Respondents
Mr. Prasanna K. Shahane for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. V. Gavand, Addl.P.P. for the Respondent.
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.
RESERVED ON: AUGUST 07, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON: AUGUST 20, 2025
Laxmi
1/7
::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2025 21:29:58 :::
wp 6325-19.revised.odt
JUDGMENT (PER GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.):
-
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter heard is
finally with the consent of parties.
2. The Petitioner has filed the present Petition to quash/set aside the
impugned FIR no. 73 of 2019 registered under Section 420 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. By an order dated 4th February 2020,
this Court had granted interim protection to the Petitioner, directing that while
the investigation will continue, no charge-sheet shall be filed.
3. We have heard Mr. P. K. Shahane, learned counsel for the
Petitioner and Mr. S. V. Gavand, learned APP for Respondent No.1. The
facts in a nutshell are as follows:-
a. In or about September 2014, the Petitioner was appointed as a Credit
Manager with Aspire Home Finance Company Ltd, now known as
Motilal Oswal Home Finance Ltd. He was stationed at the Head Office.
His role was to examine the credit record of the borrowers by analyzing
salary slip, ITR, existing loan and profile of customer, CIBIL record etc.
Laxmi
wp 6325-19.revised.odt
The loan application / proposal is initially recommended by the Branch
Credit Officer, Branch Manager and Cluster Manager and thereafter the
application is sent electronically to the Head Office Credit Department.
The credit analysis would be carried out by the Petitioner on the online
portal of the company. If the conditions were satisfied, the credit
department would approve the proposal and thereafter the loan would be
disbursed by another department through the online system called
OMNIFIIN.
b. On 22nd December 2017, the Petitioner resigned from the company for
better prospects. His arrears of salary were not paid to him, which
resulted in him filing complaints against the company. An NC No. 549
of 2018 was registered by the Dadar Police Station for his unpaid salary
dues.
c. In 2019, a complaint for cheating was filed by Respondent No.2
(original informant) against the Petitioner. This resulted in the
registration of the impugned FIR against the Petitioner along with two
other accused.
Laxmi
wp 6325-19.revised.odt
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the
documents on record. The impugned FIR, inter alia, records the following:
(i) In 2015, loan was disbursed to one Narsingh Babanrao Jadhav and
Kalpana Narsingh Jadhav for purchase of property situated at Room No.
15, Patil Chawl, Tirupati Nagar, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East).
Upon default by the borrowers, officials of Respondent No. 2 visited the
property and found it to be a chawl/slum. There is no provision for
granting a housing loan for purchase of unit in a chawl or slum. The
borrowers were not residing at the property, and had sold the unit to one
Navkumar Das, who refused to produce the property documents to
Respondent No. 2. The borrowers had not executed mortgage deed to
secure the loan; and
(ii) The Petitioner as the Credit Head, was involved in the loan approval
process. He along with the co-accused Ajit Singh and Sudhir Memon
both Branch Managers had abused their official position to sanction the
loan. The internal inquiry revealed that they acted in an illegal manner
and cheated the company into disbursing the loan of Rs. 10,39,885/-.
Laxmi
wp 6325-19.revised.odt
5. From the above, we find that the FIR clearly discloses the
Petitioner's involvement in the loan transaction. At this stage, we cannot
embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR/complaint. It is well settled law as is held in the
case of Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State of
Maharashtra [(2021) 19 SCC 401] that while exercising jurisdiction under
Section 482, High Court will not get into the merits of the FIR. At this stage,
the Court will not conduct a mini trial. What is required to be considered is the
nature of accusations and allegations in the FIR and whether the
averments/allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose the commission of the
cognizable offence or not. It is only in exceptional cases where the allegations
are so absurd and does not disclose any offence that courts can interfere. This
case does not fall within the exception as is sought to be propounded by Mr.
Shahane.
6. We also find that the credit appraisal memo annexed at page 28 of
the petition records that the Petitioner's role as one of the persons involved in
the loan approval process. Mr. Shahane attempted to distance the Petitioner
from the credit appraisal memo by submitting that the approval was subject to
Laxmi
wp 6325-19.revised.odt
legal and technical report of the property, which was the work of another
department. We are unable to accept this contention. This is a question of fact
and a matter of investigation. All this will have to be adjudicated by the Trial
Court. Equally his submission that the Petitioner is not the beneficiary of any
amounts is of no consequence at this stage.
7. The Petitioner has filed written submissions and has relied upon
the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajan Lal and Others [AIR 1992 SC 604] and Inder Mohan Goswami
Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others [MANU/SC/7999/2007] and order
dated 7th June, 2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court [Coram: Nitin
W. Sambre & Sharmila U. Deshmukh, JJ.] in Nitin Jayaram Parab vs.
State of Maharashtra.
8. We find that none of the above judgments are of assistance to the
Petitioner. The judgments in Bhajan Lal (supra) and Inder Mohan
Goswami (supra) lay down the well-established principles of when the Court
can interfere under Section 482 of the CrPC and Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. The order of the Division of this Court is of no assistance, as the facts
therein were entirely different. Paragraph 6 of the said order records that the
Laxmi
wp 6325-19.revised.odt
petitioner in that case was in no way connected with the sanction of the loan
and that the petitioner was inadvertently added to the FIR. That is not so here
since the Petitioner was admittedly involved in the loan approval process.
9. For the above reasons, this Petition is dismissed. The protection
granted on 4th February, 2020 stands vacated. Rule is discharged. There shall
be no order as to costs.
[ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.]
Laxmi
