[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Rakesh Jain And Others vs State Of Mah., Thr. Police Inspector ... on 1 December, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:13349-DB
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1592 OF 2024
1. Rakesh Jain,
age : 54 years, occupation: Managing Director & CEO,
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited.
2. Prakash Thomas,
age: 51 years, occupation: President and Head
Government Business,
Reliance General Insurance Company.
3. Rizwan Ahammad Kembhavi,
age: 48 years, occupation: Vice President-Government
Business,
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited.
4. Vijay More,
age: 44 years, occupation: Deputy Vice President-Govt.
& Rural Business,
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited.
5. Pramod Patil,
age: 38 years, occupation: Assistant Vice President-
Govt. & Rural Business,
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited.
6. Swapnil Ghule,
age: 32 years, occupation: Manager-Govt.& Rural
Business,
Reliance General Insurance Company.
.....2/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
2
All Official Address at : 6th floor, Oberoi Commerce-1,
International Business Park, Oberoi Garden City,
Western Express Highway, Goregaon East,
New Mumbai, Maharashtra. ..... Applicants.
:: V E R S U S ::
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Inspector
City Police Station Yavatmal,
district Yavatmal.
2. Pradeep Kundalik Wahane,
age: 51 years, occupation: Statistics Officer
district Agricultural Officer
Yavatmal.
3. The State of Maharashtra,
through District Superintendent Agriculture Officer
Yavatmal.
4. The State of Maharashtra,
through Deputy Director of Agriculture,
Central Building Pune.
5. Union of India,
through the CEO, PMFBY,
Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare,
Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare,
Krushi Bhavan.
New Delhi-110001. ..... Non-applicants.
.....3/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
3
Shri S.V.Manohar, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Amit
Kukday, Advocate for the Applicants.
Shri M.J.Khan, Addl.P.P. for NA Nos.1, 3 and 4/State.
Mrs.Archana Murrey, Counsel Appointed for NA No.2.
Shri Pankaj Navlani, Counsel for NA No.5.
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE &
NANDESH S.DESHPANDE, JJ.
CLOSED ON : 20/11/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 01/12/2025
JUDGMENT ( Per : Urmila Joshi-Phalke)
1. The present application is preferred by the
applicants under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing of
the FIR in connection with Crime No.1088/2024 lodged
with the Yavatmal City Police Station, Yavatmal under
Section 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The applicant No.1 is the Managing Director
and CEO of the Reliance General Insurance Company
Limited (RGICL) and applicant No.2 is the President and
Head Government Business Group of the Company. The
applicant Nos.1 and 2 are the persons related to the policy
.....4/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
decisions. The FIR is registered against them on the basis
of a report lodged by Pradip Pundlik Wahane as Technical
Officer (Statistics) Recruitment, District Superintendent,
Agriculture Office, Yavatmal. As per the report, the State
Government and the Union of India, in order to extend
financial support to the farmers suffering from crop loss
due to unnatural calamities and to ensure the farmers
continuous in farming and for encouraging them,
introduced as "Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana"
(PMFBY). RGICL was nominated as implementing agency
i.e. Public Insurance Company. As per the PMFBY, the
Government has committed to indemnify poor agricultural
by providing them insurance to their crops. As per the
Scheme, the farmers were required to pay only Re.1/- per
application as share of farmers' premium and remaining
amount of farmers' premium to be paid by the State
Government and the Central Government equally 50-50
.....5/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
percent. In order to effectively implement the Scheme, the
Central Government has issued Operational Guidelines
and the State Government has issued Government
Resolution dated 23.6.2023. The applicants company was
selected and thus was responsible for claim compensation
to the affected farmers based on the claim settlement
protocol defined in the Operational Guidelines and the
Government Resolutions. The detail Government
Resolution was passed. In total, from 110 revenue circle
of Yavatmal district, 366989 farmers participates in the
PMFBY Scheme and 844757 application of crop
applications were received. It is alleged that the
applicants, who are responsible officers, have not
considered the claim of the various farmers and thereby
duped them. On the basis of the said report, the police
have registered the crime against the applicants. It is
further alleged that the applicants have suppressed the
.....6/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
fact that they have appointed separate agency for getting
loss assessment. On the contrary, they have stated that
they have given information about appointment of
Surveyors. The names of the Taluka and District Level
Surveyors of the applicants, who have not signed any of
loss assessment forms, the applicants ought to have
disclosed that they have appointed different agencies for
carrying out the loss assessment and thus the offence
under Section 420 of the IPC is made out.
3. Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri S.V.Manohar
for the applicants, who submitted that as per the
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), the applicants
have been selected as Insurance Company for cluster No.9
from competitive bidding. As per Clause-1, the Scheme is
implemented as per the Risk and Profit Sharing Model
(CUP and CAP) Model 80:110 Profit:Risk) i.e. claims
exceeding 110% of the gross premium will be liability of
.....7/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
the Government all surplus in excess of 20% of the market
premium will returned by the Insurance Company to the
Government. This means that the Insurance Company
cannot retain more than 20% of the premium. From this
premium to be retained, all the outgoing expenditures
have to be borne by the Insurance Company. He further
submitted that as far as the grievances of the farmers are
concerned, a Redressal Mechanism has been set up. The
mechanism is from Taluka Level Committee. There is a
District Level Committee. Thereafter, there is a State Level
Redressal Level Committee and, thereafter, there is a
National Level Redressal Committee. These Committees
have been given task to examine grievances and disputes
as well as the additional claims. Except the allegation that
there have been lapses in calculating the premium, there is
no averment against the applicants as far as the offence
under Section 420 of the IPC is concerned. There is no
.....8/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
averment in the complaint that there was an intention to
cheat right from the inception. The applicant Nos.1 to 6
are top level officers of the Management of the Company.
There is not even a single averment raised against any of
those officers. They have been simply joined because they
are officers of the Company. He further submitted that a
short question arises for consideration is, whether on the
face value on the basis of allegation, the offence under
Section 420 of the IPC is made out. He submitted that
even accepting the allegations as it is, there is nothing on
record to show that there was intention since inception.
Bare reading of the FIR and chargesheet shows there are
no allegations that there was fraudulent or dishonest
intention to cheat the Government from the beginning of
the transactions. Even, there are no specific allegations
and averments in the FIR/chargesheet that the applicants
were incharge of administration and management of the
.....9/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
Company and thereby they are vicariously liable. In the
light of the aforesaid, the prayer of the applicants to quash
the criminal proceeding is required to be considered. He
submitted that the main allegations can be said to be
against the Company. The Company has not been made
accused. The allegations are restricted to the extent that
the claims of some of the farmers are not considered and
the same are rejected. By no stretch of imagination, it can
be said that this act of the applicants would be sufficient
to attract the offence under Section 420 of the IPC. For all
above these reasons, the application deserves to be
allowed.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor Shri M.J.Khan for the State submitted that as
per the allegations, the agricultural officer received first
complaint about non-receipt of insurance money.
Thereafter, so many complaints are received from the
.....10/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
farmers complaining therein that they have not received
the insurance money from the Insurance Company. On
9.8.2023, the District Superintendent of Agriculture Office,
Nagpur issued letter about details of appointment of loss
assessor by the Insurance Company. Again, on 24.8.2023,
the said officer has sent reminder to the Insurance
Company. On 5.9.2023, the Taluka Agriculture Officer
sent a letter to the Insurance Company in respect of
Abhishek Patange, who is loss assessor, who alleged to
have demanded money from the farmers for getting
insurance amount. Thereafter, similar complaints are
received as far as demand of money from the assessor is
concerned. The District Superintendent of Agriculture
Officer wrote to the Insurance Company seeking
explanation about delay in settling the claim. Thereafter,
an explanation was also called as to the act of loss
assessor. Thereafter, on 4.12.2023, meeting of the Taluka
.....11/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
Crop Insurance Redressal Committee was held and in the
said meeting, RGICL was directed to start function of the
Insurance Company and Taluka Level to disburse the claim
amount and to submit details of the panchanama and
educational qualification of the loss assessor. In the said
meeting, officers namely Swapnil Lule and Nilesh Jadhao
of the Insurance Company were present. It is further
alleged that on 5.12.2023, the Collector in the capacity of
Chairman, District Redressal Forum, passed an order
directing the Insurance Company to act for the
panchanamas and disburse the amount to the farmers.
The Insurance Company has challenged the said order of
the Collector before the Divisional Commissioner,
Agriculture Department wherein the Insurance Company
has accepted its fault while cross inspection. On
13.12.2023, the Superintendent of Agriculture
Department issued a communication to the District
.....12/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
Administrator of the Insurance Company requesting to
start functioning of full time office at District and Taluka
Level. It is also stated in the communication that various
complaints have been received. It is submitted that the
applicant No.1 is the Managing Director who is incharge of
the whole affairs of Insurance Company and also
responsible for the criminal liability, as well. The
applicant Nos.2, 3, and 5 are signatories of the MoU
between the Government and Reliance Company they are
authorized by the Insurance Company to look after the
said claim and applicant Nos.4, 5 and 6 are local
representatives of the Insurance Company and they are
authorized by the Insurance Company for implementation
of the Scheme. The Insurance Company has provided list
of their officers and their designations. For
implementation of the PMFBY Scheme, the Government
has flouted tender and, thereafter, RGICL was appointed
.....13/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
as implementing agency. Therefore, the appointed
Company is duty bound to obey the clauses in the bid. It
is responsibility of the implementing agency to settle the
claim of the farmers within a prescribed time. However,
the Insurance Company has not settled the claims in a
prescribed time line. It is further alleged that the officers
of Insurance Company were involved in malpractices,
manipulations, and loss reporting. The registration of the
FIR is on the basis of the investigation carried out and
various statements of the witnesses recorded. It revealed
during the investigation that the officers of the Reliance
Company have prepared forged and fabricated crop
panchanamas. Thus, a prima facie case is made out
against the applicants and, therefore, the application
deserves to be rejected.
.....14/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
5. In support of his contentions, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has placed
reliance on following decisions:
(1) Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NCT of Delhi and ors,
reported in AIR 1999 SC 1216;
(2) M.Krishnan vs. Vijay Singh and anr,
reported in AIR 2001 SC 3014;
(3) State of Delhi vs. Gyan Devi and ors,
reported in AIR 2001 SC 40, and
(4) State of M.P. Vs Awadh Kishore Gupta and
ors, reported in (2004)1 SCC 691.
6. On hearing both the sides and perusing the
investigation papers, it is not in dispute that PMFBY
Scheme was launched in the 2016 by the Government of
India. It aims at providing risk cover to the Indian Farmers
from production vulnerabilities with the key feature being
highly subsidiaries and affordable premium for the
.....15/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
farmers. The beneficiary farmers pay nominal share of the
premium and difference between the actual premium and
farmers' share of premium is subsidized and share
between the Central Government and the State
Government. The entire Scheme is administered by the
Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government
of India and is implemented uniformly in participating
State/Union Territory on a voluntary basis. The PMFBY is
implemented through the Revamp Operational Guidelines
(ROG), which provides a detailed end to end guideline
and processor from enrollment to claim settlement
including grievance redressal for proper implementation.
The actual operations under the Scheme are covered by
ROG and advisories issued by the Government of India
which set out modalities and manner in which the Scheme
would given effect. The details of the provisions of the
ROG are comprehensive. By the lapse of time, there have
.....16/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
been various improvements made in the original Scheme
for Risk Transfer Mechanism through insurance and the
Government of India for the Tender Cycle Kharip 2023
Pre-Rabi 25-26 came up with a revised Scheme vide its
letter dated 3.4.2023. It further reveals that in CUP and
CAP (Model 80:110 Profit:Risk) the insurance company's
liabilities are restricted upto maximum 110% of the gross
premium and if the losses are less than 80%, the balance
premium stands refunded to the Government. The
Insurance Company does not get higher profit and also it
is not oblige to settle all reported claims as seasonable
claims cost beyond 110% are to be borne by the State
Government.
7. To implement the Scheme, the State of
Government invited bids from the various Insurance
Companies. The State of Maharashtra accordingly
obtained to cover the crop insurance risk by CUP and CAP
.....17/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
Method and in this method, the implementing Insurance
Companies are under an obligation to return seasonal
surplus for the season in excess of 20% of the gross
premium for the cluster. Upon opening the bids, RGICL
was allotted with a Cluster-9 comprising of districts
Yavatmal, Amravati, and Gadchiroli in pursuance of the
tender process. Accordingly, Notification was issued on
26.6.2023 by the Department of Agriculture and Animal
Husbandry, Dairy Development, and Fisheries through the
Assistant Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra
appointing the RGICL as implementing agency for Cluster-
9 from Kharip 2023 Season to Rabi 2-25-2025 Season. In
terms of the ROG and Notification, a MoU was executed
between the RGICL and the State Government on
30.6.2023. During the period of implementation i.e. July
to December 2023, large number of individuals claims
were received for which Joint Loss Assessment Surveyors
.....18/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
were necessary. The RGICL solicited the District
Administration Participation through several
communications, but finally completed assessment of
approximately 4.68 lacs intimations and settled eligible
claims of Rs.285.00 crores thereby certain grievances
during this period addressed at the district level for
resolution of grievances, the District Redressal Grievances
Committee, Yavatmal was established for addressing the
said grievances. The various attempts were made to
resolve the issue of the non-eligible farmers and ultimately
vide its decision dated 5.12.2023 the District Collector
Yavatmal directed the RGICL to accept the assessment
made under the NDRF surveys for determining
compensation in case of ineligible claims under the
PMFBY for Kharib 2023 Season. The RGICL considering
the fact that this being the contrary to the operational
guidelines filed representation before the State Redressal
.....19/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
Grievances Committee in view of Clause-30 of the ROG
and Clause-18 of the Notification. The said Committee
vide its decision dated 4.7.2024 directed non-applicant
NO.3 to inform the Insurance Company about the farmers'
losses under The National Disaster Response Fund
(NDRF) within two days and the RGICL should finalize
such loss percentage based on circlewise rainfall statistics
and the information of the farmers who have suffered
losses under the NDRF. It further reveals that various
deliberatoins and pursuations were there with the State
Authorities. In fact, ROG itself is self comprehensive to
take care of the various grievances regarding inadequacy
of compensation , the defect if any alleged by the
individuals and other stakeholders in the process and any
other irregularity if they noticed, the provisions of the
ROG provided for appropriate redressal mechanism for
the same. Despite the clear provisoins of the ROG, it was
.....20/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
insisted to settle the illegible claim in absence of valid
data.
8. Considering the submissions made by learned
Senior Counsel for the applicants, it would be
approrpirate to see the Government Notification and the
terms and conditions in the said Government Notification.
9. As to the assessment of the loss, it is
specififically laid down in the Government Notification
dated 26.6.2023, which states as under:
"ई) नुकसान निनश्चि ती व अहवाल सादर करणे
१) निवमा कंपनीने मानिहती प्राप्त झाल्यापासून ४८ तासांच्या आत नुकसानीचे
मुल्यांकन निनश्चि त करण्यासाठी निवनिहत अनुभव व शैक्षणिणक पात्रतेच्या
निनकषानुसार पय- वेक्षकाची निनयुक्ती करावी, यामध्ये कोणत्याही निवषयाची
पदनिवका व दोन वषा-चा अनुभव किंकवा कृनिष व संलग्न निवषयाची पदवी व १
वषा-चा अनुभव अपेश्चिक्षत आहे. त्याचप्रमाणे सेवानिनवृत्त
कृनिष/फलोत्पादन/कृनिष निवस्तार शाखेचे अश्चि:कारी , सेवानिनवृत्त बैंक
.....21/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
अश्चि:कारी ज्यांना पीक कर्ज- वाटपाचा अनुभव आहे त्यांची निनयुक्ती करता
येईल.
२) पीक नुकसानीचे सवAक्षण संयक्त
ु सनिमश्चित माफ-त करण्यात येईल ज्यात
निवमा कंपनीचा पय- वेक्षक, तालुका स्तरावरील कृनिष अश्चि:कारी आणिण संबश्चिं :त
शेतकरी यांचा समावेश असेल.
३) पुढील १० निदवसांच्या आत नुकसानीचा अहवाल तयार करण्यात यावा.
४) नुकसानीचा अहवाल प्राप्त झाल्यानंतर १५ निदवसांच्या आत (निवमा हप्ता
र्जमा झाला आहे या अटFचे अश्चि:न राहून) नुकसान भरपाई देण्यात यावी.
५) काढणीप ात र्जोखीमकरीता, र्जर अश्चि:सुश्चिचत निपकाचे बा:ीत क्षेत्र हे
एकूण पेरणी क्षेत्राच्या २५ टक्के पेक्षा र्जास्त असेल तर अश्चि:सुश्चिचत क्षेत्रातील
सव- पात्र शेतकरी हे काढणीप ात नुकसान भरपाई निमळण्यास पात्र राहतील.
संयक्त
ु सनिमतीने निवहीत प्रमाणात केलेल्या नमूना सवAक्षणाचे आ:ारे निवमा
कंपनीमाफ-त नुकसानीचे प्रमाण ठरनिवण्यात येईल.
६) स्थानिनक आपत्तीच्या र्जोखीमकरीता, र्जर बा:ीत क्षेत्र हे अश्चि:सुश्चिचत
निवमा क्षेत्राच्या २५ टक्के पय- न्त असेल तर वैयनिक्तक स्तरावर व २५ टक्के
पेक्षा र्जास्त असेल तर अश्चि:सुश्चिचत क्षेत्रातील पात्र शेतकऱ्यांना (निवमा
.....22/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
योर्जनेत सहभागी झालेले व निपकाचे नुकसान निवनिहत वेळेत पूव-सच
ू ना
निदलेले) नुकसान भरपाईस पात्र ठरेल.
7) नुकसानीचा अहवाल प्राप्त झाल्यानंतर १५ निदवसांच्या आत निवमा कंपनी
अनुदेय नुकसान भरपाई अदा करेल.
८) स्थानिनक नैसर्गिगक आपत्ती या बाबी अंतग- त निपक नुकसानीच्या सूचना
कापणीच्या तारखेपयPत देता येतील. सव- सा:ारण कापणीच्या १५
निदवसांच्या दरम्यान स्थानिनक नैसर्गिगक आपत्तीमुळे झालेल्या नुकसानाचे
सवAक्षणद्वारे येणारे मूल्यांकन आणिण निपक कापणी प्रयोगाची उत्पादकता यांना
५०:५० भारांकन देऊन नुकसान भरपाई निनश्चि त करण्यात येईल.
९) र्जर हंगामाच्या शेवटी प्राप्त होणाऱ्या सरासरी उत्पन्नाच्या आ:ारे निनश्चि त
होणारी नुकसान भरपाई (पीक कापणी प्रयोगावर आ:ारीत) ही र्जर काढणी
प ात नुकसान भरपाई या अंतग- त निमळालेल्या नुकसान भरपाईपेक्षा र्जास्त
असेल तर नुकसान भरपाईम:ील फरक शेतकऱ्यांना अदा करण्यात येईल.
परंतु र्जर काढणी प ात नुकसान भरपाई या बाबी अंतग- त निमळालेली
नुकसान भरपाई ही र्जास्त असेल तर फरकाची रक्कम शेतकऱ्याकडू न वसूल
करण्यात येणार नाही.
अटी:
.....23/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
१) नुकसानीच्या अश्चि:सुचने अगोदर ज्या शेतकऱ्यांनी निवमा हप्ता रक्कम
भरली आहे किंकवा त्यांच्या खात्यातून निवमा हप्ता रक्कम वर्जा करुन घेण्यात
आली आहे असेच शेतकरी सदर मदतीसाठी पात्र राहतील.
२) स्थानिनक आपत्ती अंतग- त र्जोखमीबाबत शासनामाफ-त अग्रीम निवमा हप्ता
अनुदान (निकमान प्रथम हप्ता) प्राप्त झाल्यानंतर निवमा कंपनीमाफ-त सदरच्या
तरतुदीची नुकसान भरपाई देण्यात येईल. परंतु काढणी प ात र्जोखमीबाबत
शासनामाफ-त अंश्चितम निवमा हप्ता अनुदान (निद्वतीय हप्ता) प्राप्त झाल्यानंतरच
निवमा कंपनीमाफ-त सदरच्या तरतुदीची नुकसान भरपाई देण्यात येईल.
३) र्जर हंगामाच्या अखेरीस पीक कापणी प्रयोगाच्या उपलब्: मानिहतीच्या
आ:ारे निनश्चि त होणारी नुकसान भरपाई ही र्जर या तरतुदी अंतग- त
निमळालेल्या नुकसान भरपाईपेक्षा र्जास्त असेल तर दोन्हीमध्ये र्जास्त
होणारी नुकसान भरपाईच्या फरकाची रक्कम हंगामाच्या शेवटी शेतकऱ्याला
देय राहील. स्थानिनक आपत्तीच्या घटनेनंतर र्जर शेतकऱ्यांचा सहभाग किंकवा
निवमा हप्ता वर्जा करुन घेण्यात आला असेल तर असे शेतकरी आर्थिथक
मदतीस पात्र राहणार नाहीत".
10. As far as responsibility of payment of
compensation is concerned, Clause-13 of the said
Notification states as follows:
.....24/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
"१३. नुकसान भरपाईचे दाश्चियत्त्व :
योर्जनेच्या तरतूदीनुसार नुकसान भरपाईचे दाश्चियत्व संबं:ीत निवमा कंपनीवर
राहणार आहे. या योर्जनेअत
ं ग- त निवमा कंपन्या एका वषा-मध्ये जिर्जल्हा
समुहामध्ये एकूण र्जमा निवमा हप्ता रक्कमेच्या ११० टक्के पयPतचे दाश्चियत्व
स्वीकारतील. तथानिप, एका वषा-तील देय निपक निवमा नुकसान भरपाईची
रक्कम, र्जमा निवमा हप्ता रक्कमेच्या ११० टक्के पेक्षा र्जास्त असल्यास ११०
टक्के पेक्षा र्जास्तीचा भार राज्य शासन स्विस्वकारेल आणिण र्जर देय निपक निवमा
नुकसान भरपाईची रक्कम जिर्जल्हा समुहामध्ये एकूण र्जमा निवमा हप्ता
रकमेपेक्षा कमी असेल तर निवमा कंपनी निवमा हप्ता रक्कमेच्या र्जास्तीत र्जास्त
२० टक्के रक्कम स्वतःकडे ठे वेल व उव- रीत निवमा हप्ता रक्कम राज्यशासनाला
परत करेल. या अनुषंगाने करावयाची काय- वाही खालील उदाहरणाव्दारे
नमूद करण्यात आली आहे.
परिरस्विस्थती-१ र्जर जिर्जल्हा समुहामध्ये र्जमा निवमा हप्ता रक्कम १०० कोटी
असेल व देय नुकसान भरपाई ११५ कोटी असल्यास निवमा कंपनी रुपये
११० कोटी नुकसान भरपाई अदा करेल व राज्य शासन रु.५ कोटी अदा
करेल.
परिरस्विस्थती-२ र्जर जिर्जल्हा समुहामध्ये र्जमा निवमा हप्ता रक्कम १०० कोटी
असेल व देय नुकसान भरपाई ७५ कोटी असल्यास निवमा कंपनी रुपये ७५
.....25/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
कोटी नुकसान भरपाई अदा करेल, रु. २० कोटी स्वतःकडे ठे वेल व रु. ५
कोटी राज्य शासनास परत करेल".
11. Regarding the redressal of the complaints,
there is specific Clause-18, which states as follows:
"१८. योर्जनेंतग- त शेतकऱ्यांच्या प्राप्त होणाऱ्या तक्रारीबाबत करावयाची
काय- वाही :-
प्र:ानमंत्री पीक निवमा योर्जनेच्या संदभा-त शेतकरी, लोकप्रश्चितनिन:ी यांचे
माफ-त सातत्याने नुकसान भरपाई न निमळणे / कमी निमळणे, निवमा कंपनी
कडू न प्रश्चितसाद न निमळणे , निवमा कंपनी कडू न निपक पंचनामे वेळेत न होणे ,
बँकांमाफ-त शेतकऱ्यांचे अर्ज- न स्विस्वकारणे , निवमा कंपनीस मानिहती सादर
करतांना बँकांमाफ-त त्रुटी राहणे, / निवलंब होणे, निवमा कंपनी माफ-त रक्कम प्राप्त
झाल्यानंतरही बँकांमाफ-त लाभार्थ्यांयाPना निवनिहत कालाव:ीत अदा न करणे इ.
प्रकारच्या तक्रारी प्राप्त होत असतात.
कृनिष निवभागास प्राप्त झालेल्या तक्रारींवर तातडीने काय- वाही होणेचे दृष्टीने
सतत पाठपुरावा होत असतो. त्यानुसार, प्राप्त होणाऱ्या निवनिव: तक्रारींचे
निनरसन अनुक्रमे तालुकास्तर, जिर्जल्हास्तर, निवभागस्तर व राज्यस्तरावरील
सनिमतीमाफ-त करणे आवश्यक आहे. सदर प्रयोर्जनाथ- यापुवF शासनाने
शासन निनण- य क्र. प्रनिपनिवयो-२०१९/प्र.क्र.०१ /११- से, निद. १२ र्जुलै
२०१९ व निद. ०६ ऑगस्ट २०१९ अन्वये निदलेल्या सुचना निवचारात घेऊन
तालुकास्तरावर संबश्चिं :त तहसीलदार, जिर्जल्हास्तरावर संबंश्चि:त
जिर्जल्हाश्चि:कारी, निवभानिगयस्तरावर निवभागीय आयुक्त, तसेच राज्यस्तरावर
.....26/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
अपर मुख्य सश्चिचव/ प्र:ान सश्चिचव/सश्चिचव (कृनिष) यांचे अध्यक्षतेखाली
खालीलप्रमाणे सनिमत्या स्थापन करणेत येत आहेत.
तालुका स्तरावरील सनिमती
योर्जनेसंदभा-त स्थानिनक स्तरावरील निवनिव: लोकप्रश्चितनिन:ी शेतकरी
यांचेकडू न प्राप्त होणान्या तक्रारींचे निनराकरण स्थानिनक स्तरावरच होण्याच्या
दृनिष्टकोनातून तालुकास्तरावर तहसीलदार यांचे अध्यक्षतेखाली खालील
प्रमाणे तक्रार निनवारण सनिमती गनिठत करण्यात आल्या आहेत.
१) तहसीलदार : अध्यक्ष
२) गटनिवकास अश्चि:कारी, पंचायत सनिमती : सदस्य
३) संबंश्चि:त मंडळ कृषी अश्चि:कारी : सदस्य
४) शेतकरी प्रश्चितनिन:ी (२) : सदस्य
५) अग्रणी बँकेचे तालुका स्तरीय प्रश्चितनिन:ी : सदस्य
६) जिर्जल्हा मध्यवतF सहकारी बैंक प्रश्चितनिन:ी : सदस्य
6) संबंश्चि:त निवमा कंपनीचे प्रश्चितनिन:ी : सदस्य
7) आपले सरकार सेवा केंद्र चालक यांचे प्रश्चितनिन:ी : सदस्य
९) तालुका कृषी अश्चि:कारी : सदस्य सश्चिचव
.....27/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
तालुकास्तरीय सनिमतीने पार पाडावयाची कत- व्ये व र्जबाबदाऱ्या:
१) योर्जनेच्या अंमलबर्जावणी संदभा-त प्राप्त होणाऱ्या शेतकऱ्यांच्या
निनवारणासाठी योर्जनेच्या माग- दश- क सूचनेच्या अ:ीन राहून काय- वाही करणे.
२) योर्जनेसंब:
ं ी प्राप्त तक्रारींचे अनुषगं ाने काय- वाही करणे.
३) योर्जने संबंश्चि:त आपले सरकार सेवा केंद्राच्या कामकार्जावर
तालुकास्तरीय निनयंत्रण ठे वणे.
४) तालुक्यातील सव- राष्ट्रीयीकृत / खार्जगी / सहकारी बँकेच्या शाखांमाफ-त
करण्यात येणाऱ्या योर्जनेच्या सहभागाबाबत सनिनयंत्रण करणे.
५) नोंदणी संदभा-तील तक्रारींबाबत पडताळणी करून आवश्यकतेनुसार
निवभागस्तरीय / जिर्जल्हास्तरीय सनिमतीस णिशफारस करणे.
जिर्जल्हा स्तरावरील सनिमती
१) जिर्जल्हाश्चि:कारी : अध्यक्ष
२) जिर्जल्हयाचे जिर्जल्हा अश्चि:क्षक कृनिष अश्चि:कारी : सदस्य
३) निवमा कंपनीचे प्रश्चितनिन:ी : सदस्य
४) जिर्जल्हा अग्रणी बँक अश्चि:कारी : सदस्य
५) जिर्जल्हा उप व्यवस्थापक, नाबाड- : सदस्य
.....28/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
६) निनमंत्रीत तज्ञ (कृनिष निवद्यापीठ शास्रज्ञ / संशो:न संस्था प्रश्चितनिन:ी):
सदस्य
7) शेतकरी प्रश्चितनिन:ी (र्जास्तीत र्जास्त ३) : सदस्य
८) कृनिष उप संचालक, जिर्जल्हा अश्चि:क्षक कृनिष अश्चि:कारी काया-लय : सदस्य
सश्चिचव
निवभागीय आयुक्त स्तरावरील सनिमती
१) निवभागीय आयुक्त : अध्यक्ष
२) संबंश्चि:त जिर्जल्हयाचे जिर्जल्हाश्चि:कारी : सदस्य
३) निवमा कंपनीचे प्रश्चितनिन:ी : सदस्य
४) कृनिष निवद्यापीठ शाজন্ন: सदस्य
५) शेतकरी प्रश्चितनिन:ी (र्जास्तीत र्जास्त २) : सदस्य
६) संबंश्चि:त निवभागीय कृनिष सह संचालक: सदस्य सश्चिचव
राज्यस्तरावरील सनिमती
१) अ.मु.स./प्र.स./सश्चिचव (कृषी) : अध्यक्ष
२) आयुक्त कृषी : सदस्य
.....29/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
३) आयुक्त सहकार : सदस्य
४) समन्वयक, राज्यस्तरीय बैंकस- कनिमटी : सदस्य
५) मुख्य सरव्यवस्थापक, नाबाड- : सदस्य
६) शेतकरी प्रश्चितनिन:ी (र्जास्तीत र्जास्त २) : सदस्य
७) निव:ानमंडळ सदस्य (तक्रार प्राप्त निवभागाम:ील) (र्जास्तीत र्जास्त २) :
सदस्य
८) उप सश्चिचव : सदस्य सश्चिचव
* सनिमती आवश्यकतेनुसार निवद्यानिपठे / हवामानशास्र निवभाग / संशो:न
संस्था/कमोडीटी बोड- /महाराष्ट्र राज्य सुदरू संवेदन उपयोनिगता केंद्र / राज्य
टेस्विक्नकल सपोट- युनिनट म:ील तज्ञांना निनमंत्रीत करु शकेल.
जिर्जल्हास्तरावरील सनिमतीने तक्रारींचे निनरसन करावे. जिर्जल्हास्तरावरील
सनिमतFकडे केलेल्या तक्रारींचे योग्य निनरसन न झाल्यास निवभागीय
स्तरावरील सनिमतीने त्या तक्रारींचे निनरसन करावे . निवभागीयस्तरावर निनरसन
न झालेल्या तक्रारी राज्यस्तरीय सनिमतीसमोर सादर करण्यात याव्यात.
गंभीर स्वरुपाच्या तक्रारी, एकाहुन अश्चि:क जिर्जल्ह्यांशी संबं:ीत तसेच
नुकसानीची व्याप्ती रु. २५ लाखांहून अश्चि:क असेल अशा तक्रारी
राज्यस्तरीय सनिमतीकडे सादर करतील. राज्यस्तरीय सनिमती तक्रार प्राप्त
झाल्यानंतर तात्काळ निनकाली काढेल. सनिमतीचा निनण- य सव- घटकांना मान्य
असेल.
.....30/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
प्र:ानमंत्री निपक निवमा योर्जनेसंदभा-त न्यायालयीन प्रकरणी दाव्यांचे कामकार्ज
पाहण्यासाठी, शासनाचे वतीने संपुण- काय- वाही करणेसाठी तसेच जिर्जल्हा
ग्राहक तक्रार निनवारण न्यायमंच येथे दाखल केल्या र्जाणाऱ्या तक्रारीच्या
अनुषगं ाने संपूण- काय- वाही करणेसाठी संबंश्चि:त जिर्जल्हयाच्या जिर्जल्हा अश्चि:क्षक
कृनिष अश्चि:कारी यांना प्राश्चि:कृत करण्यात येत आहे.
तालुका, जिर्जल्हास्तरावर योर्जनेच्या अंमलबर्जावणी संदभा-त प्राप्त होणाऱ्या
शेतकऱ्यांचे तक्रार निनवारणासाठी उपरोक्त सनिमत्यांनी माग- दश- क सुचनेच्या
अश्चि:न राहुन काय- वाही करावी. जिर्जल्हा, निवभागस्तरावर तक्रारींचे योर्जनेच्या
माग- दश- क सुचनेनुसार निनरसन न झाल्यास कृनिष आयुक्तालयस्तरावर सदर
प्रकरण संपूण- तपशीलांसह निवभागीय कृनिष सह संचालक यांनी अणिभप्रायांसह
सादर करावे. राज्यस्तरावर सदर योर्जनेच्या प्रभावी अंमलबर्जावणीसाठी
आयुक्त, कृनिष हे सनिनयंत्रण व पय- वेक्षण करतील".
12. Thus, the Government Notification specifically
states that in what manner the Scheme is to be
implemented and if there is greivance as to non-
settlement of the claim, an alternate redressal is already
provided in the said Government Notification. The MoU
is also executed between the Director of Agriculture
(Extention and Trainining), Commissionarate of
Agriculture, Maharashtra State, Pune and the
.....31/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
M/s.Reliance General Insurance Company Limtied. As per
MoU, Clause-3, the Government published E-Tender on
8.5.2023 for interested empanneled insurance companies
for the purpose of implementing the Scheme without any
remuneration from the Government of Maharashtra.
Under the heading of "Whereas, Clause-4", it is
stated that "the ROG is selected as the Insurance
Company for the work for Cluster-9 and the State of
Maharashtra from competitive bidding received for the
purupose".
Under the heading of "Now, it is agreed by
between the parties hereto, as the Scheme is implemented
as per the Risk and Profit Sharing Model (CUP and CAP)
Model 80:110 Profit:Risk) i.e. the seasonal cost of claims
exceeding 110% of the gross premium for the cluster shall
by be borne by the Government which shall assume a
.....32/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
maximum claims liability upto 110% to the gross
premium".
The said Clause further states that any seasonal
surplus over a period of contract in excess of 20% of the
gross premium for the cluster would be refunded to the
Government i.e. if the annual loss ratio is less than 80%,
then surplus (80%) annual actual loss ratio would be
refunded to the Government directives given by the DA
and FW by reference F.No.11019/01/2022 credit and (FTS
111875) dated 3.4.2023 regarding the terms and
conditions mentioned in Model III CUP and CAP (80:110).
13. As per the allegations in the FIR, the Insurance
Companies have executed service agreements with the
various agencies. The agreements were signed by the
applicant No.2. The agreements were entered into
specifically for the purpose of providing loss
assessor/survey to the RGICL/applicants. In absence of
.....33/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
any specific provisions in ROG or the Government
Resolutions, such averments were made by the applicants.
Thus, the same was indirect conflict and breach of the
ROG. It is further alleged that the non-applicant No.3
repeatedly by their communications on various occasions
have sought information regarding the appointment loss
surveyors. However, no such information was provided.
ROG also provided the time limit within which the loss
assessors were required to submit their reports and the
time framed within which loss assessment was required to
be completed and claims were required to be settled.
None of the time frames were followed by such loss
assessors or evaluators. Before carrying out any loss, it
was expected from the loss assessors to give prior
intimation to the office of the non-applicant No.3 which
was not given. As per the allegations, the loss assessors
not only demanded money from the farmers but also
.....34/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
submitted incorrect and false information regarding the
loss sustained by the farmers. Thus, the loss assessors
worked without any authority and, thereafter, accepted all
loss survey reports by the company and the applicants
acted upon them. Despite repeated communications by
the Office of the District Agriculture, the applicants did not
take any action.
14. Thus, the entire nature of the allegations is that
despite various complaints received regarding the loss
assessors, no action is taken by the applicants.
15. In fact, perusal of the entire investigation
papers shows that there is no specific allegation as far as
the present applicants are concerned. On the contrary, it is
apparent that the Grievances Redressal Committee is
already established for resorting to the modalities of the
said grievances. Without approaching the said Grievance
Redressal Committees, the informant has lodged the
.....35/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
report contrary to the directions given by the Director of
Ministry of Farmers Welfare Department of Agriculture
dated 29.10.2024. The said communication is addressed
to the Principal Secretary (Agriculture/Horticulture/
Cooperative) of all States in implementing
PMFBY/RWECYS. The subject of the said communication
was following provisions of Revamp Operational
Guidelines for Grievances and Disputes Resolution while
ensuring co-operations amongst stakeholders under the
PMFBY/RW/RWECIS. Clause-4 of the said communication
states that the department is in receipt of representations
from the Insurance Companies regarding FIRs being
lodged against their management/employees by the
District Authorities and the use of legal/criminal laws in
various instances especially in relation to claim settlement,
which are not in compliance with Guidelines of the
Scheme. Such actions may hinder the objectives of the
.....36/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
PMFBY, leading to delays and destruction in its
implementations, besides the reducing active participation
of the Insurance Company in certain Districts/States
thereby leading to less competition in premium prices.
In Clause-5, the directions were given that,
accordingly, the State Government are requested to issue
suitable directions to the District Administration and
concerned Nodal Directors within a State to strictly
adherence to the provisions outlined in operational
guidelines related to the grievances and dispute
resolutions under the Scheme, thereby improving the co-
operation amongst stakeholders for effective
implementation and execution.
16. The further communication of the Ministry of
Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India was
issued on 12.3.2025 by which under Clause-5, it was
requested to Principal Secretary, Agriculture & ADF
.....37/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
Department, Maharashtra, Mumbai. The said Clause-5 is
reproduced as under:
"In view of the above, it is requested to review
the action taken by District Administration in
terms of provisions contained in the operation
guidelines of the Scheme (2023), including the
grievance redressal mechanism, and issue
necessary instructions for adherence and
compliance of the same".
17. In view of the above communications, the
Director of the Agriculture Department issued
communication to the District Administration by
communication dated 12.12.2024, which is reproduced as
under:
"ईमेलद्वारे र्जा.क्र. प्रनिपनिवयो/सां.८/अंमब/तक्रार निनवा/२-३४४/२०२४
निदनांक: १२/१२/२०२४
प्रश्चित,
मा. जिर्जल्हाश्चि:कारी तथा
.....38/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
अध्यक्ष, जिर्जल्हा स्तरीय पीक निवमा सनिमती, (सव- )
निवषयः प्र:ानमंत्री निपक निवमा योर्जने अंतग- त तक्रारींचे निनवारण हे केंद्र शासनाच्या माग- दश- क
सुचनेतील तरतुदीनुसार करणेबाबत....
संदभ- : केंद्र शासन, कृनिष व शेतकरी कल्याण मंत्रालय यांचे पत्र F.No.१३०१२/०३/२०२१-
Credit-II (FTS-९३६०१), निद.२९.१०.२०२४.
उपरोक्त निवषयांनिकत संदभFय पत्रान्वये केंद्र शासनाने सुश्चिचत केले आहे की , राज्यात
प्र:ानमंत्री निपक निवमा योर्जना राबनिवताना निवनिव: समस्या तथा तक्रारी उद्भवतात. सदर
तक्रारींचे निनराकरण हे केंद्र शासनाच्या निपक निवमा योर्जनेच्या माग- दश- क सुचनांस अनुसरुन
करणे आवश्यक आहे.
पीक निवमा नुकसान भरपाई संदभा-तील तक्रारींच्या अनुषगं ाने अनेक निठकाणी निवमा कंपनी
निवरुद्ध फौर्जदारी दंड संनिहता अंतग- त तक्रारी दाखल करण्यात येतात, तथानिप ही बाब केंद्र
शासनाच्या माग- दश- क सुचनांचे उल्लंघन करणारी आहे. सदर पार्श्व-भुनिमवर, पीक निवमा
योर्जनेबाबत तक्रारींचे निनवारण करताना केंद्र शासनाच्या माग- दश- क सुचनेप्रमाणे होईल
याबाबत योग्य ती काय- वाही करण्यास निवनंती आहे.
सोबतः केंद्र शासनाच्या संदभFय पत्राची प्रत
(निवनयकुमार आवटे)
संचालक, कृनिष प्रक्रीया व निनयोर्जन
कृनिष आयुक्तालय महाराष्ट्र राज्य
प्रत मानिहतीस्तव सनिवनय सादरः
१. मा. सश्चिचव कृनिष, कृनिष व पदम
ु निवभाग, मंत्रालय, मुंबई-३२
२. मा. आयुक्त कृनिष, महाराष्ट्र राज्य, कृनिष आयुक्तालय, पुणे-१
प्रत मानिहत्ती तथा आवश्यक काय- वाहीसाठीः
३. निवभागीय कृनिष सहसंचालक, (सव- )
४. जिर्जल्हा अश्चि:क्षक कृनिष अश्चि:कारी (सव- )
18. In the light of the above facts and
circumstances, it is to be ascertained whether the
.....39/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
allegations levelled in the FIR are sufficient to attract the
offence under Section 420 of the IPC.
19. Admittedly, the entire allegations are levelled
against the loss assessors who are service providers and
appointed in view of the agreement between RGICL and
various service provides. The loss assessors were
appointed by the said service provides in view of the said
agreement. The Penal Code does not contain in any
provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of the
Managing Director or the Directors of the Company. The
Insurance Company is a body corporate. There has to be a
specific provision fixing such vicarious liability. Even, for
the said purpose, it obligatory on the part of the
complainant to make requisite allegation which would
attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability.
20. Considering the averments in the allegations in
the FIR and even the entire investigation papers are
.....40/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
against the RGICL with whom the Government of
Maharashtra entered into MoU. Bare reading of the FIR
even the investigation papers shows that there are no
allegations that there was any fraudulent or dishonest
intention to cheat the Government from the very
beginning of the transactions. Even, there are no specific
allegations in the FIR or the investigation papers that the
applicants were incharge of the administration and
management of the company and thereby there is
vicarious liability.
21. In the light of the aforesaid, it is to be seen
whether the offence under Section 420 of the IPC is
attracted.
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Haryana and ors vs. Bhajan Lal and ors, reported in
1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335 has categorized the cases by
way of illustrations wherein powers under Article 226 of
.....41/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
the Constitution and under Section 482 of the CrPC
could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process
or process of any court otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that powers
under Section 482 can be exercised in following
circumstances:
"(i) where the allegations made in the
First Information Report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out a case against
the accused;
(b) where the allegations in the First
Information Report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the
F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a
.....42/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code;
(c) where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or
'complaint and the evidence collected
in support of the same do not disclose
the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do
not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of
a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the
FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is
.....43/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused;
(f) where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of
the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in
the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party; and
(g) where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him
due to private and personal grudge".
.....44/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
23. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants
placed reliance on the decision in the case of Sushil Sethi
and anr vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and ors, reported
in (2020)3 SCC 240 wherein by referring the decision in
the case of Vesa Holdings Private Limited v. State of Kerala
and others, reported in (2015)8 SCC 293 it is held that
every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence
of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract
would amount to cheating where there was any deception
played at the very inception. It is further observed and
held that for the purpose of constituting an offence of
cheating, the complainant is required to show that the
accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time
of making promise or representation. It is further observed
and held that even in a case where allegations are made in
regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his
promise, in the absence of a culpable intention at the time
.....45/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
of making initial promise being absent, no offence under
Section 420 IPC can be said to have been made out. It is
further observed and held that the real test is whether the
allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offence
of cheating or not.
24. In the same judgment, another decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court was referred in the case of Hira Lal
Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI, New Delhi, reported in (2003) 5
SCC 257 wherein it is held that It is settled law, by a
catena of decisions, that for establishing the offence of
cheating, the complainant is required to show that the
accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time
of making promise or representation. From his making
failure to keep promise subsequently, such a culpable
intention right at the beginning that is at the time when
the promise was made cannot be presumed. As there was
absence of dishonest and fraudulent intention, the
.....46/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
question of committing offence under Section 420 of the
Penal Code, 1860 does not arise.
25. In the present case also, the allegation against
the applicants is of incomplete submissions of information
and education qualification of appointed surveyors. The
allegation of surveyors is asking money while conducting
the field survey, is levelled in the FIR. The non-intimation
in proper planning and non-conduct of joint surveys, is
another allegation levelled against surveyors. The
inadequacy of the compensation amount is another
allegation levelled in the FIR. In fact, the assessment of
the claim is strictly in terms of the ROG. The last
allegation is about providing information and settlement
of the claims without referring to the joint committee and
calculation sheet being not provided.
26. Even accepting the allegations as it is and
applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
.....47/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
the above said decisions to the facts of the case in hand,
we are of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the
powers under Section 482 of the CrPC and to quash the
impugned criminal proceeding as even accepting the
allegations as it is, at the most, it could be a breach of
contract. However, as far as the intention since inception
is concerned, nothing is on record to show there was any
intention since inception to cheat the Government or the
farmers.
27. As observed earlier, the investigation papers
and the FIR show the allegations against the applicants
that they have committed the offence under Section 420
read with 34 of the CrPC. However, it is required to be
noted there are no specific allegations and averments in
the FIR and even in the investigation papers, fraudulent
and dishonest intention of the applicants from the
inception of the transactions. It is required to be noted
.....48/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
that there was a contract between the RGICL and the
Government for indemnifying the claims of the farmers. A
detailed MoU was executed between the State
Government and the Company. A separate Grievance
Redressal Committee was established under the said
Scheme. The Government Notification which is referred
above specifically states that all the grievances are to be
addressed through the said Committee. Despite there are
directions from the Central Government as well as the
State Government to the District Administration, the FIR
came to be lodged.
28. In view of the above, we are of a firm opinion
that this is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section
482 of the CrPC and under Section 528 of the BNSS to
quash the criminal against the applicants for the offence
under 420 read with 120B of the IPC. To continue the
criminal proceeding against the applicants, would be
.....49/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
abuse of process of law as it is settled law that summoning
of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter.
Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of
course.
29. Bare reading of the FIR and chargesheet and
considering the allegations and in absence of any allegations
as to fraudulent and dishonest intention to cheat the
Government from the very beginning of the transactions and
even there is absence of specific allegation and the averments
against the applicants as to how they are vicariously liable, the
prayer of the applicants to quash the criminal proceeding is
required to be allowed.
30. In this view of the matter, we proceed to pass
following order:
ORDER
(1) The Criminal Application is allowed.
.....50/-
Judgment
505 ap1592.24
(2) The FIR in connection with Crime No.1088/2024
lodged with the Yavatmal City Police Station, Yavatmal
under Section 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code
is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of the
applicants.
(3) Fees of learned counsel Mrs.Archana Murrey appointed
for non-applicant No.2 are quantified and the same be
paid to her as per Rules.
Application stands disposed of. Criminal
Application No.1942/2024 also stands disposed of.
(NANDESH S.DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
!! BrWankhede !!
Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../-
Date: 02/12/2025 17:32:55
