Ramanrao S/O Musalaih Bolla And 2 Others vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Mauda, ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 8458 Bom

Bombay High Court

Ramanrao S/O Musalaih Bolla And 2 Others vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Mauda, ... on 3 December, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:13550-DB




              Judgment

                                                              506 ap1209.24

                                           1

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

                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1209 OF 2024

              1. Ramanrao s/o Musalaih Bolla,
              aged about 48 years, occupation:
              business, r/o 250 Bharat Nagar,
              behind Hotel Satya, Nagpur-440 035.
              (presently in the Central Jail Nagpur).

              2. Vijaylaxmi Ramanrao Bolla,
              aged about 41 years, occupation:
              housewife, r/o 250 Bharat Nagar,
              behind Hotel Satya, Nagpur-440035.
              (presently in the Central Jail Nagpur).

              3. Tirupatirao s/o Musalaih Bolla,
              aged about 50 years, r/o plot No.
              74, Santh Dyaneshwar Society,
              Bharatwada Road, Nagpur-440035.
              (presently in the Central Jail Nagpur). ..... Applicants.

                                   :: V E R S U S ::

              1. The State of Maharashtra,
              through PSO Mauda,
              PS Nagpur (Rural).

              2. Economic Offences Wing,
              Nagpur (Rural), Civil Lines, Nagpur-
              440 001.

              3. Ramkrushna s/o Manikrao

                                                                    .....2/-
 Judgment

                                               506 ap1209.24

                              2

Nimbulkar, aged: major, occupation:
business/farmer, r/o 41, ward No.2,
r/o Hingna Barabai, Parseoni,
P.S.Mouda, Nagpur (Rural), district:
Nagpur.

4. Union Bank of India, a body
Corporate Constituted under the
Banking Companies (Acquisition and
transfer of undertaking Act, 1980)
having one of its branches at
National Insurance Building, SVP
Marg, Kingsway, Nagpur-440 010,
through its authorized officer. ..... Non-applicants.

Shri A.S.Mardikar, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri M.Anil
Kumar, Advocate for the Applicants.
Shri N.B.Jawade, Addl.P.P. for NA Nos.1 & 2/State.
Shri Vedant Raut, Counsel for NA No.3.

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE &
        NANDESH S.DESHPANDE, JJ.

CLOSED ON : 19/11/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 03/12/2025

JUDGMENT ( Per : Urmila Joshi-Phalke)

1. Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri

A.S.Mardikar for the applicants, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor Shri N.B.Jawade for non-applicant Nos.1 and

.....3/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

2/State, and learned counsel Shri Vedant Raut for non-

applicant No.3. Admit. Heard finally by consent of

learned counsel appearing for parties.

2. The present application is preferred by the

applicants under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing of

FIR in connection with Crime No.0783/2023 and

consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing

Special Case No.67/2024 pending before learned District

Judge-13 and Sessions Judge, Nagpur under Sections 109,

409, 413, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and 66(d) of

the Information Technology Act, 2000 (the IT Act) and 3

of The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in

Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (the MPID Act).

3. As per the contentions of the applicants,

applicant Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife and applicant

No.3 is brother of applicant No.1. The applicant No.1 was

.....4/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

dealing in the business of trading Grams, Dal, Tur, and

other food-grains.

4. The crime is registered against the applicants

on the basis of a report lodged by Ramkrishna Manikrao

Nimbulkar alleging that he and his friends Vijay Dadaram

Wankhede and Nilkanth are farmers. The applicant No.1

owns a Warehouse at Gumthala (Mauda), Nagpur and

deals in business of paddy, pulses, and other food-grains

like grams. One Roshan Pande, working as driver with co-

accused V.S.Wakalpuddy, approached the complainant and

other farmers and informed that the Government is

implementing a Scheme granting compensation to small

farmers who suffered losses and are victims of natural

calamities. On the basis of the same, co-accused

V.S.Wakalpuddy took the complainant and other farmers

to bank. Their documents like Aadhar Cards,

Photographs, and Identity Proofs were obtained on a

.....5/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

pretext of opening of bank accounts for depositing

compensation amounts. At the relevant time, co-accused

V.S.Wakalpuddy introduced them with applicant No.1 who

informed the complainant and other farmers that for

receiving the compensation, bank accounts are to be

opened in bank and their accounts are required for the

same. They were also administered liquor.

5. After some days, the complainant and other

farmers received Notices from Corporation Bank dated

9.4.2018 asking them to repay loan amounts and,

therefore, the complainant visited Advocate Chikhale to

find out why the notices were issued to them and

he and other farmers came to know that the bank

advanced loans in favour of the complainant and the other

farmers and loan amounts are outstanding against them.

Thereafter, the complainant met co-accused

V.S.Wakalpuddy and the applicant No.1 and informed

.....6/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

them about notices issued to them. They both assured

them that whatever loans shown in their names are

secured and the same shall be refunded within two years.

As co-accused V.S.Wakalpuddy and the applicants obtained

signatures of the complainant and other farmers and

obtained loans in their names behind their back, they

approached the police station and lodged the report on the

basis of which the crime was registered.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants

submitted that as far as applicant Nos.2 and 3 are

concerned, they are not at all concerned with any of

activities. They are only partners along with the applicant

No.1. As far as applicant No.1 is concerned, even

accepting the allegations as it is, by no stretch of

imagination it can be said that it was "deposit" within the

meaning of Section 2(c) of the MPID Act and, therefore,

.....7/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

the offence under Section 3 of the MPID Act is not made

out against him.

He submitted that he is restricting his

submission regarding quashing of the FIR to the extent of

application of Section 3 of the MPID Act.

As far as other offences are concerned, he is not

pressing the application for quashing of the FIR.

He invited our attention towards definition of

"deposit" defined under Section 2(c) of MPID Act. He has

also invited our attention to the definition of "Financial

Establishment" given under Section 2(d) of the MPID Act

and submitted that neither the applicants are coming

under the definition of "Financial Establishment" nor the

alleged transactions entered into by applicants by using

documents of the farmers can be said to be "deposit" and

therefore, the offence under Section 3 of the MPID Act is

.....8/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

not made out. In view of that, the application deserves to

be allowed.

7. In support of his contentions, learned Senior

Counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the decision

of Single Bench of this court wherein one of us is Member

(Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.) in Criminal Revision Application

No.238/2022 and connected application (Rakesh s/o

Upendra Singh vs. State of Maharashtra and anr) decided

on 23.6.2025 and on the decision in the case of State of

Maharashtra vs. 63 Moons Technologies Limited, reported

in (2022)9 SCC 457.

8. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

for the State strongly opposed the application and

submitted that considering the allegations levelled against

the applicants, who have obtained loans in the names of

various farmers including the complainant under a pretext

of depositing the compensation amounts under the .....9/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

Government Scheme for their loss of grains and by using

the documents, had obtained loans. Thus, the applicants

are coming under the definition of Financial

Establishments as well as there is prima facie material to

connect the applicants to show their involvement in the

alleged offence. Overall 158 cases of such loan

transactions were reported and investigation was carried

out in this regard. The investigating agency has also

collected documents relating to these loan cases. The

statements of the witnesses under Section 161 was

recorded and various documents, relating to the

transactions and purchase of stock by the applicant No.1

from the market, which was shown in the names of the

farmers and kept in godown of the accused, were seized.

The bank account statements, showing money transferred

from accounts of farmers to accounts of applicant No.1,

were also seized by the investigating agency. The account

.....10/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

statements of the applicant No.1 and applicant Nos.2 and

3, who are relatives of applicant No.1, account statements

of the firms in which the amounts were transferred were

collected. The material collected by the investigating

agency clearly shows that the victims in the present crime

are agriculturists, who were lured by the applicants to

open the bank accounts, in which it was falsely assured

that the Government is going to deposit the money by way

of compensation and obtained the loans in their names.

Believing the said assurances, the bank accounts were

opened and the accused persons got loan amounts

deposited in accounts of these farmers and utilized by

accused persons for themselves. The poor farmers

received notices from the bank for recovery of the loan

amounts and, thereafter, they realized that fraud is

committed against them. The accused persons conspired

.....11/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

to commit the said crime and, therefore, the application

deserves to be rejected.

9. After hearing both the sides and perusing the

investigation papers, it reveals that the report is lodged on

allegation that the complainant, who is farmer, and other

farmers, who are either landless or less land, were selected

and called by co-accused V.S.Wakalpuddy through his

Driver Roshan Pande. They were induced on a pretext that

they can receive compensation against natural calamities

and their documents were obtained and by using the said

documents, bank accounts were opened in their names

and 184 loan proposals were prepared in their names. The

farmers were not aware about this fact and when they

received notices from the bank, they came to know that

they were duped and, therefore, they approached the

police station and lodged the report on the basis of which

the crime was registered. During investigation, it was

.....12/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

revealed that the bank accounts were opened in the names

of the farmers and cheque books and other documents

were misused. The scam is worth of Rs.145,25,00,168/-

involving three banks namely Corporation Bank, IDBI

Bank, and Vaishya Bank. 158 loan cases were prepared

with Corporation Bank, 22 loan cases were prepared with

IDBI Bank, and 3 cases were prepared with the Vaishya

Bank. It further revealed that the accused persons and

other co-accused used to apply for loans by mortgaging

crops with their beneficiaries. The other co-accused who

were grain merchants used to purchase grains from open

market and the said grains were used for obtaining the

loans in the names of the persons having either landless or

less land. While keeping grains as mortgaged, co-accused

V.S.Wakalpuddy along with applicant No.1 used to keep

50% of the grains and 50% of chaff as mortgage. The

officers of the NCML, who were supervising, were also

.....13/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

managed by giving pecuniary benefits, forged reports were

prepared and by showing forged data of food-grains by

showing the same as mortgage loans, amounts were

obtained and the same were misappropriated. The

statements of various witnesses show involvement of co-

accused V.S.Wakalpuddy as well as applicant No.1 in the

said crime. As far as applicant Nos.2 and 3 are concerned,

they are also beneficiaries of the said transactions as some

amounts are transferred either to their firms or to their

personal accounts. Perusal of the investigation papers

shows that loans were obtained in the names of various

farmers who were either landless or less land. The

certificates issued by the Talathi show list of the persons

having either no land in their names or less land. The

investigating officer has also collected copy of the

application filed by co-accused V.S.Wakalpuddy before the

DRT for one time settlement. The copy of the application

.....14/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

was seized by the investigating officer. The said

application as well as statements of the farmers shows

involvement of applicant No.1 in the alleged offence. The

statement of bank official Gauri Patankar also

substantiates the allegations that loans were obtained in

respect of food-grains, stored in godown of applicant No.1

and bogus release orders were issued by NCML officers

and said food-grains were disposed of from the godown.

Regarding the said incident, farmers raised their

grievances before the District Collector also.

10. As far as sanction of loans is concerned,

confidential reports of the Executive Director and the

Chief Executive Officer of Fraud Monitoring Cell also point

out that the loans were sanctioned against the agricultural

produce stored in the godown owned by applicant No.1,

co-accused Rakesh Singh, and Nutan Singh. It further

.....15/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

points out that the irregularities and illegalities are

committed while sanctioning the loans also.

11. Thus, it is crystal clear from the investigation

papers that it was applicant No.1 along with other co-

accused approached the various farmers and promised

them that they will get compensation and thereby by

obtaining their documents, loan amounts were sanctioned

against their names and the amounts were siphoned. The

applicant Nos.2 and 3, who are Directors along with

applicant No.1 in various firms, also received benefits

from the said transactions.

12. Thus, as far as the offences under 109, 120-B,

409, 413, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC 66(d) of the IT

Act are concerned, there is ample material against the

applicants.

.....16/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

13. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants fairly

submitted that he is pressing for quashing of the FIR as far as

offence under Section 3 of the MPID Act is concerned as even

accepting the allegations as it is, it nowhere shows that the said

amounts or the said transactions can be fitted within the definition

of "deposit" in view of Section 2(c) of the MPID Act. He further

submitted that Sections 411 and 413 of the IPC are not attracted.

14. Now, only question is, whether the allegations

levelled against the applicants establish offence under

Section 3 of the MPID Act.

15. Before referring Section 3 of the MPID Act, it is

necessary to refer Section 2(c) of the said Act, which

provides for definition of term "deposit", which reads as

under :

"2(c) "deposit" includes and shall be deemed always to have included any receipt of money or acceptance of any valuable commodity by any Financial Establishment to be returned after a .....17/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

specified period or otherwise, either in cash or in kind or in the form of a specified service with or without any benefit in the form of interest, bonus, profit or in any other form, but does not include --

(i) amount raised by way of share capital or by way of debenture, bond or any other instrument covered under the guidelines given, and regulations made, by the SEBI, established under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 ;

(ii) amounts contributed as capital by partners of a firm;

(iii) amounts received from a scheduled bank or a co-operative bank or any other banking company as defined in clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 ;

(iv) any amount received from,--

(a) the Industrial Development Bank of India,

(b) a State Financial Corporation,

(c) any financial institution specified in or under section 6A of the Industrial

.....18/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

Development Bank of India Act, 1964, or

(d) any other institution that may be specified by the Government in this behalf ;

(v) amounts received in the ordinary course of business by way of,--

(a) security deposit,

(b) dealership deposit,

(c) earnest money,

(d) advance against order for goods or services ;

(vi) any amount received from an individual or a firm or an association of individuals not being a body corporate, registered under any enactment relating to money lending which is for the time being in force in the State ; and

(vii) any amount received by way of subscriptions in respect of a Chit.

Explanation I.--"Chit" has the meaning as assigned to it in clause (b) of section 2 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982;

.....19/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

Explanation II.-- Any credit given by a seller to a buyer on the sale of any property (whether movable or immovable) shall not be deemed to be deposit for the purposes of this clause."

16. At the same time, definition given under

Section 2(d) of "Financial Establishment" is also required

to be perused, which states that "Financial Establishment"

means any person accepting deposit under any scheme or

arrangement or in any other manner but does not include

a corporation or a co-operative society owned or

controlled by any State Government or the Central

Government or a banking company as defined under

clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act,

1949.

17. In the light of the above definitions, if the facts of

the present case are taken into consideration, it shows that

as per allegations against the applicants, they have

.....20/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

obtained money by using documents for loan proposals

and obtained loans in the names of various farmers. The

transaction of amounts obtained by the accused persons

whether covers under the definition of "deposit" defined

under Section 2(c) of the MPID Act. If nature of

transaction is taken into consideration, it would disclose

that there was a loan transaction between the bank with

the help of documents of various farmers.

18. In the present case, it is nobody's case that

applicants are running any "financial establishment" and

they have collected "deposits", but it is case that they have

misrepresented agriculturists, collected documents from

them, obtained loans in their names, and loan amounts

are misappropriated by them.

19. Thus, the entire controversy revolves around

question as to whether loans' amounts obtained by

.....21/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

applicants in names various agriculturists are within the

definition of "deposit".

20. Thus, definitions of "deposit" and "financial

establishment" are rather expansive. The inclusive

definition of "deposit" covers any receipt of money or

acceptance of any valuable commodity, except those

amounts which have been specifically excluded by sub-

clauses (i) to (vii) thereof. Thus, any person accepting

deposits under any scheme or in any other manner

satisfies the description of financial establishment except a

corporation or a co-operative society owned or controlled

by any State Government or the Central Government or a

banking company defined under the Banking Regulation

Act.

21. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of State of

Maharashtra vs. 63 Moon Technologies Limited, reported

.....22/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

in (2022)9 SCC 457, dealt with the scope and ambit of

"deposit" and "financial establishment" and held as under:

"(i) the expression 'deposit' is conspicuously broad in its width and ambit for it includes, not only any receipt of money but also the acceptance of any valuable commodity by a financial establishment under any scheme or arrangement;

(ii) the money or commodity must be liable to be returned. However, such return need not necessarily be in the form of cash or kind but also in the form of a service, with or without any benefit such as interest;

(iii) it is not necessary that the return should be with the benefit of interest, bonus or profit.

Therefore, if the financial establishment is obligated to return the deposit without any increments, it shall still fall within the purview of Section 2(c) of the MPID Act, provided that the deposit does not fall within any of the exceptions;

.....23/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

(iv) the phrase 'valuable commodity' cannot be restricted to only mean precious metals. Agricultural commodities which NSEL trades in will fall within the purview of the term, and

(v) the definition is broadly worded to include even the possession of the commodities for a limited purpose."

22. Thus, The expression "deposit" is conspicuously

broad in its width and ambit for it includes, not only any

receipt of money but also the acceptance of any valuable

commodity by a financial establishment under any scheme

or arrangement. The expression 'any' is used in the

substantive part of the definition of the expression

'deposit' on five occasions namely;

(i) Any receipt of money;

(ii) Any valuable commodities;

(iii) By any financial establishment;

(iv) With or without any benefit; and

.....24/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

(v) In any other form.

The Hon'ble Apex Court further explains that there

is nothing in the definition of the term "deposit" to mean

that the acceptance of the commodity should be

accompanied by a transfer of title to the commodity. Even

if the financial establishment is only in "custody" of the

commodity, it would still fall within the purview of the

phrase "acceptance of commodity".

23. According to the second ingredient of Section

2(c), the money or commodity must be liable to be

returned. However, such return need not necessarily be in

the form of cash or kind but also in the form of a service,

with or without any benefit such as interest. It needs to be

recalled that clause (v) of Section2(c) states that a deposit

of money or commodity made as a security deposit,

.....25/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

dealership deposit or an advance amount is excluded from

the definition of the phrase "deposit".

24. On going through the entire record and

investigation papers, the prosecution case, on the basis of

statements of witnesses, revolves around facts that

applicants along with co-accused obtained loans in names

of farmers and said loan amounts were transferred in

accounts of said farmers and from accounts of farmers

transferred said amounts to various accounts and various

proprietary concerns. These proprietary concerns are in

the names of applicants and their close relatives.

25. Thus, the entire investigation papers show that

amounts are obtained by way of loans in names of

farmers. Thus, loans advanced in names of farmers, which

are required to be repaid to the concerned bank, would

not amount to "deposit" within the meaning and for the

purpose of the MPID Act.

.....26/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

26. The object of the aforesaid enactment was

clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.New

Horizon Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Government of Pondicherry,

thr.Additional Secretary and anr, reported in (2012)10

SCC 575 and it has been observed that the object of this

enactment is mainly to protect the interests of small

depositors from fraud perpetrated on unsuspecting

investors, who entrusted their life savings to unscrupulous

and fraudulent persons and who ultimately betrayed their

trust. The said enactment was enacted to protect the

interests of small depositors from fraud perpetrated on

unsuspecting investors, who entrusted their life savings to

unscrupulous and fraudulent persons and who ultimately

betrayed their trust that was stated to be the main object

indicated in the statement of object and reason of the

enactment. The nature of legislation is to protect the

interests of small depositors, who invest their life's

.....27/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

earnings and savings in schemes for making profit floated

by unscrupulous individuals and companies, both

incorporated and unincorporated which needs to be kept

in mind while testing the provisions of the said Act.

27. In the aforesaid view of the matter, loans obtained

by applicants in names of farmers would not amount to

"deposit" within the meaning and for the purposes of the

said Act.

28. Even, "financial establishment" under Section 2(d)

defines, "as any person accepting a deposit".

29. On going through the definition of "financial

establishment", admittedly, the applicants do not fit in the

definition of "financial establishment" and, therefore, the

contention of learned Senior Counsel for applicants

requires to be accepted that amounts obtained by

applicants, allegedly by obtaining loans in names of

.....28/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

farmers, does not come within the definition of "deposit"

and the applicant also are not covered under the definition

of "financial establishment".

30. Section 3 of the MPID Act, deals with

fraudulent default by financial establishment. On going

through the ingredients of the said Section, it shows that

whoever fraudulently defaults any repayment of deposit

on maturity along with any benefit in the form of interest,

bonus, profit or in any other form as promised or

fraudulently fails to render service as assured against the

deposit, every person including the promoter, partner,

director, manager or any other person or an employee

responsible for the management of or conducting of the

business or affairs of such Financial Establishment shall,

on conviction, shall be punished.

.....29/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

31. Here, in the present case, even accepting the

allegations as it is, no offence is made out against the

applicants under Section 3 of the MPID Act.

32. The applicants are also charged for offences

under Sections 411 and 413 of the IPC. Section 411 of the

IPC deals with dishonestly receiving stolen property and

Section 413 of the IPC deals with habitually dealing in

stolen property. There are no such allegations in the FIR

against the applicants and, therefore, the offences under

Sections 411 and 413 of the IPC are also not made out

against them.

33. After going through the entire investigation

papers and considering entire material on record, it is

difficult to hold that Section 3 of the MPID Act is attracted

against the applicants as allegations levelled against them

are that they obtained money in the names of the farmers

by obtaining loans and transferred to their accounts and .....30/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

siphoned the same to the accounts of their firms which

does not come within the definition of "deposits."

34. In this view of the matter, the application

deserves to be allowed partly. Hence, we proceed to pass

following order:

ORDER

(1) The Criminal Application is allowed partly.

(2) The FIR in connection with Crime No.0783/2023 and

consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing

Special Case No.67/2024 pending before learned District

Judge-13 and Sessions Judge, Nagpur under Sections 109,

409, 413, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and 66(d) of

the Information Technology Act, 2000 and 3 of The

Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in

Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 are hereby quashed

and set aside to the extent of Section 3 of the MPID Act

.....31/-

Judgment

506 ap1209.24

and Sections 411 and 413 of the IPC in respect of the

applicants.

35. The prosecution will continue against the

applicants under Sections 109, 120-B, 409, 413, 420, 467,

468, 471 of the IPC and 66(d) of the IT Act.

Application stands disposed of.

(NANDESH S.DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

!! BrWankhede !!

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../- Date: 05/12/2025 10:37:45