[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Rameshwar Dharmraj Tandale And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 19 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:36350
Cri-Revn-243-2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.243 OF 2025
1. Rameshwar S/o. Dharmraj Tandale,
Age : 38 years, Occu. : Agriculture,
R/o. : "Omkar Nivas", Bhatwadgaon,
Post Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon,
Dist. Beed.
2. Pandurang S/o. Sudam Tandale,
Age : 40 years, Occu. : Agriculture,
R/o. Govindwadi, Post, Kitti Adgaon,
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. ... Applicants
(Orig. Accused)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Station In-charge, Majalgaon
(City) Police Station,
2. Kiskinda Manaji Hirve,
Age : 54 Years, Occu : Business,
R/o : Khanapur, Tq. Majalgaon,
Dist.-Beed ....Ori. Complainant
3. Shivhari S/o Ashok Yadav,
Age : 36 years, Occu : Chairman,
Dhunkeshwar Urban Nidhi Ltd.
Majalgaon, R/o. Shikshak Colony,
Bhatwadgaon, Tq. Majalgaon,
Dist.-Beed.
4. Sachin S/o Pandurang Rodge,
Age : 37 years, Occ : Vice-Chairman,
Dhunkeshwar Urban Nidhi Ltd.
Majalgaon, R/o- Adjacent to Keshavrao
Mangal Karyalaya, Bhatwadgaon,
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed.
5. Shankar S/o Ashok Yadav,
Age : 30 years, Occu : Branch Officer,
Dhunkeshwar Urban Nidhi Ltd.
Majalgaon, R/o- Dhunkawad,
Tq. Dharur, Dist.-Beed.
Cri-Revn-243-2025
-2-
6. Dattatraya S/o Renukadas Nandurkar,
Age : 35 years, Occ : Manager,
Dhunkeshwar Urban Nidhi Ltd.
Majalgaon, R/o. Bramhgaon,
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed.
7. Dilip S/o Anna Bhise,
Age : 32 years, Occ : Recovery Officer,
Dhunkeshwar Urban Nidhi Ltd.,
Majalgaon, R/o. Fulenagar,
Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed.
8. Ashok S/o Subhash More,
Age : 25 years, Occ : Cashier,
Dhunkeshwar Urban Nidhi Ltd.
Majalgaon, R/o-Shelapuri,
Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist.-Beed.
9. Sunil S/o Babruwan Fapal,
Age : 28 years, Occ : Loan Officer,
Dhunkeshwar Urban Nidhi Ltd.
Majalgaon, R/o. Belura,
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed.
10. Sanjiwani Vasant Katare,
Age : 31 years, Occ. Clerk,
Dhunkeshwar Urban Nidhi Ltd.,
Majalgaon R/o Dindrud, Tq - Majalgaon,
Dist.-Beed.
11. Anant Bhagwat Dhapate,
Age : 22 years, Occu : Peon,
Dhunkeshwar Urban Nidhi Ltd.,
Majalgaon, R/o. Laul, Tq- Majalgaon,
Dist.-Beed. ... Respondents
(Resp. nos.3 to 11 are
formal respondents.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.129 OF 2025
1. Rameshwar S/o. Dharmraj Tandale,
Age : 38 years, Occu. : Agriculture,
R/o. : "Omkar Nivas", Bhatwadgaon,
Cri-Revn-243-2025
-3-
Post Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon,
Dist. Beed.
2. Pandurang S/o. Sudam Tandale,
Age : 40 years, Occu. : Agriculture,
R/o. Govindwadi, Post. Kitti Adgaon,
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. ... Applicants
(Orig. Accused)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Station In-charge, Majalgaon,
(City) Police Station,
2. Trimbak S/o. Mhatarba Yadav,
Age : 65 Years, Occu : Agril.,
R/o : Mothewadi, Tq. Majalgaon,
Dist.-Beed. ....Ori. Complainant
3. Shivhari S/o Ashok Yadav,
Age : 36 years, Occu : Chairman,
Dhunkeshwar Urban Nidhi Ltd.
Majalgaon, R/o. Shikshak Colony,
Bhatwadgaon, Tq. Majalgaon,
Dist.-Beed.
4. Sachin S/o Pandurang Rodge,
Age : 37 years, Occ : Vice-Chairman,
Dhunkeshwar Urban Nidhi Ltd.
Majalgaon, R/o- Adjacent to Keshavrao
Mangal Karyalaya, Bhatwadgaon,
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed.
5. Shankar S/o Ashok Yadav,
Age : 30 years, Occu : Branch Officer,
Dhunkeshwar Urban Nidhi Ltd.
Majalgaon, R/o- Dhunkawad,
Tq. Dharur, Dist.-Beed.
6. Dattatraya S/o Renukadas Nandurkar,
Age : 35 years, Occ : Manager,
Dhunkeshwar Urban Nidhi Ltd.
Majalgaon, R/o. Bramhgaon,
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed.
Cri-Revn-243-2025
-4-
7. Dilip S/o Anna Bhise,
Age : 32 years, Occ : Recovery Officer,
Dhunkeshwar Urban Nidhi Ltd.,
Majalgaon, R/o. Fulenagar,
Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed.
8. Ashok S/o Subhash More,
Age : 25 years, Occ : Cashier,
Dhunkeshwar Urban Nidhi Ltd.
Majalgaon, R/o-Shelapuri,
Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist.-Beed.
9. Sunil S/o Babruwan Fapal,
Age : 28 years, Occ : Loan Officer,
Dhunkeshwar Urban Nidhi Ltd.
Majalgaon, R/o. Belura,
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed.
... Respondents
(Resp. nos.3 to 9 are
formal respondents.
.....
Mr. N. P. Bangar, Advocate for Applicants/Revision Petitioners.
Mrs. P. V. Diggikar, APP for Respondent - State.
Mr. S. S. Solanke, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 09 DECEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 19 DECEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT :
1. In both these revisions, revisionists - original accused are
taking exception to the impugned orders dated 10.04.2025 and
19.03.2025, respectively, passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Majalgaon, thereby invoking powers under section 175(3) of
B.N.S.S., on receipt of complaints from present respondent No.2,
Cri-Revn-243-2025
Kiskinda Manaji Hirve and Trimbak S/o. Mhatarba Yadav,
respectively.
2. Learned counsel for both the revisionist would submit
that, present revision petitioner no.1 was working as a Secretary of
Dhunkeshwar Urban Nidhi, which is a Nidhi Company incorporated
under the Companies Act, whereas petitioner no.2 was a Director.
That, however, revision petitioner no.1 had already tendered
resignation on 10.05.2024 and his resignation was also duly
accepted on the same day, of which even communication was made to
him discharging him from responsibilities since 09.06.2024. That, as
regards to revision petitioner no.2 is concerned, he was merely a
Director and was not responsible for the day to day affairs of the
company. It is pointed out that, complaint has been received and
entertained directly by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
wherein there are allegations of commission of certain offences under
B.N.S.S. as well as M.P.I.D. Act. That, learned court below failed to
appreciate that allegations were in fact general and omnibus in
nature and were non specific. However, in spite of so, erroneously
cognizance has already been taken and directions are given to
investigate. According to them, there is non application of mind to
the contents of complaint and in a mechanical manner impugned
orders have been passed.
Cri-Revn-243-2025
3. It is further submitted that, another patent illegality here
committed is that, company is not made a party, but still above
impugned order has been passed. That, here, company was necessary
party to be impleaded. On this count, he seeks reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal
v. Central Bureau of Investigation, [(2015) 4 SCC 609] as well as
judgment of this court in the case of Arun P. Gidh v. Chandraprakash
Singh and Ors., [2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1028].
4. It is further submitted that, yet another irregularity
committed here is that, there was no committal order passed by any
Magistrate having jurisdiction so as to empower learned Additional
Sessions Judge to entertain and pass the impugned order.
For above reasons, impugned orders dated 10.04.2023
passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.14/2025 and impugned
order dated 19.03.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Application
No.12/2025 along with the FIR, are sought to be quashed and set
aside.
5. Learned counsel for original complainant supports the
impugned orders and according to him, the same are just and legal,
Cri-Revn-243-2025
and as according to him, there being provisions of M.P.I.D. Act, the
specially designated court is the repository of powers to deal with
such cases.
6. Perused the papers. Here, order passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Majalgaon directing investigation by invoking
section 175(3) of B.N.S.S. is under challenge. Said provision is
reproduced as under :-
Section 175 - Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 210 may, after
considering the application supported by an affidavit made
under sub-section (4) of section 173, and after making such
inquiry as he thinks necessary and submission made in this
regard by the police officer, order such an investigation as
above-mentioned.
The above provision is analogues to previous provision
under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
7. It appears that, one Kiskinda Manaji Hirve and Trimbak
Mhatarba Yadav have filed private complaints bearing Criminal Misc.
Application Nos.14/2025 and 12/2025 before learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Majalgaon and its substance is that, 10 to 11 accused
named in the both FIR, who were officiating in various capacities in
Cri-Revn-243-2025
Dhunkeshwar Urban Nidhi Ltd., Majalgaon by assuring handsome
returns and attracted fix deposits. Both complainant claimed that,
believing accused persons, they had invested various amounts to the
tune of Rs.16,80,349/- and Rs.40,25,363, respectively, at various
times and when the refund was demanded, it is alleged that, initially
on one or other count, time was sought to make repayments, but
finally there was refusal to return the money and so having felt
cheated and duped, they both made following prayer for conducting
inquiry at the hands of police and to register crime accordingly :-
"After investigating the complainant's complaint, it is necessary
to send the case to Majalgaon City Police Station for filing a
First Information Report (FIR) in order to bring forth the true
circumstances of the present case and identify the remaining
accused. Therefore, it is requested that legal action be taken
against all individuals connected with the concern institution."
(As translated by Senior Translator, High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad)
8. Here, much emphasize is laid by learned counsel for
revision petitioners on the point that, there is Non-application of
mind by the court below to the very contents of the complaint and
directly cognizance has been taken without due satisfaction as
required under law and further investigation is also directed at the
hands of police. The second limb of their argument is that even
company is not arraigned as an accused and thirdly, even when there
was no committal order by any learned Magistrate, directly
Cri-Revn-243-2025
complaints have been entertained by the Court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, which according to them, is impermissible.
9. The impugned order below Exh.1 is reproduced as
under :-
"Perused the complaint, affidavit of applicant,
submission of concerned Police Officer and documents on
record. Heard learned Advocate for applicant. On perusal of
record it appears that investigation in detail is necessary in this
matter. Considering the peculiar facts of the case it appears to
be just and proper to order an investigation under section
175(3) of B.N.S.S. Hence, concerned Police Officer of
Majalgaon City Police Station to investigate the matter and
file report under section 175(3) of B.N.S.S. The copy of this
order be sent to concerned Police Officer, Majalgaon City
Police Station.
Application be disposed of accordingly."
10. Here, the issue of competence of learned Additional
Sessions Judge to direct investigation, is required to be dealt at the
threshold. Admittedly, here, jurisdiction of Court of Additional
Sessions Judge has been invoked vide above Criminal Misc.
Applications. In the complaint, allegations are of commission of
offence under sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of
Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999
(M.P.I.D. Act) and rest of the offences alleged are 318(1), 318(2),
318(4), 336(2), 338, 340(1) of B.N.S.S., 2023.
Cri-Revn-243-2025
The object of M.P.I.D. Act 1999 is to protect the interest of
depositors. Here also, prima facie, there are averments in the
complaint that by approaching complainant, investments were
attracted by way of fix deposits. Consequently, the said court being
the designated court dealing with M.P.I.D. cases, which is a distinct
and a special statute, is indeed empowered to entertain cases of such
nature. It being special statute, Court of learned regular Magistrate
does not assume power. Hence, complaints seem to have been
entertained. Even otherwise, powers of Magistrate are analogues to
the powers of Special Judge. It is fairly settled position that Special
Judge takes a seat of Magistrate as a court of original jurisdiction
while functioning as a Special Judge. This position is clarified in the
judgment of A. R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and Ors., AIR
1984 SC 718, and the relevant text to that extent is reproduced as
under. Gist of the paragraph 27 of the said judgment is as under :
"The Court or a Special Judge is a Court of original criminal
jurisdiction. As a court of original criminal jurisdiction in
order to make it functionally oriented, some powers were
conferred by the statute setting up the courts. Except those
specifically conferred and specifically denied, it has to
function as a court of original criminal jurisdiction not being
hide-bound by terminological status description of Magistrate
or a Court of Sessions. Under the Code it will enjoy all the
Cri-Revn-243-2025
powers which a court of original criminal jurisdiction enjoys,
save and except the ones specifically denied."
This court also in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1166 of 2010
in the case of The Superintendent of Police, Pune v. Satish s/o.
Sampatlal Surana and Ors. [2015 (4) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 587, has
adopted above view.
Consequently for above reasons, the objection raised
before this court about competence of learned Additional Sessions
Judge to entertain the complaint, has no force and is required to be
discarded.
11. As regards to submission of Non-application of mind and
passing the order in mechanical manner is concerned, in the
considered opinion of this court, learned court below has not at all
taken cognizance of complaint and merely directions to investigate
and submit report, are issued. In the considered opinion of this court,
it is a pre-cognizance stage order, as neither complainant is
examined nor any statement of witnesses are taken into account, no
process is issued and no further steps, as contemplated under law for
taking action, have been taken by the learned court below.
Cri-Revn-243-2025
12. As to what amounts to taking cognizance is dealt and
clarified in series of judicial pronouncements viz. Devarapalli
Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, [(1976) 3 SCC 252];
Mahadeo v. State of Maharashtra, [(2013) 5 SCC 615]; Ramdev Food
Products Private Limited v. State of Gujarat , [(2015) 6 SCC 439];
Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau v. State of Gujarat , [(2010) 2 SCC
(Cri.) 801], wherein the scheme of 156(3) Cr.P.C. (new provision
section 175(3) B.N.S.S.), has been discussed.
13. The ratio i.e. carved out is that, when a Magistrate does
not take cognizance and does not find it necessary to postpone the
issue of process and rather finds the case made out to proceed
forthwith, directions under this provision can be issued. Here,
learned trial court has merely applied his mind to the nature of
allegation and has thought it fit to ascertain whether there is truth in
the said accusation and therefore, directions to investigate has been
issued.
14. In the case of Tula Ram and Ors. v. Kishore Singh, AIR
1977 SC 2401, it is clarified as to what is meant by 'taking
cognizance' and it was held that taking cognizance means judicial
application of mind by the Magistrate to the facts mentioned in the
complaints, with a view to take further action. At such pre-
Cri-Revn-243-2025
cognizance stage, the sole purpose is to determine whether there is
sufficient ground for taking judicial notices with a view to initiate
further proceedings.
15. Here, learned Special Court, while exercising the original
jurisdiction of a Magistrate, had two courses open to it, i.e. firstly
either to direct registration and investigation as contemplated under
the old section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (new section 175(3) B.N.S.S.) and
secondly, to take cognizance as contemplated under section 200
Cr.P.C. onwards. Here, as stated above, learned Special Judge, has
not verified the complaints nor statements of any witnesses are
visited. On the contrary, in view of the nature of allegations, learned
Special Judge thought it fit to get the matter investigated through
agency like police, who are bestowed with plenary powers to
investigate.
For above reasons, no fault can be found in the directions
issued by learned Special Judge for making investigation done.
16. As regards to failure of complainant to implead company
is concerned, it is purely in the domain of learned trial court to take a
call whether company is at all a necessary party or not. Here,
allegations are prima facie directed against named accused and for
inducing complainant to invest and there are allegation of
Cri-Revn-243-2025
deceiving/cheating complainant by not returning their amounts as
agreed.
The ruling relied by learned counsel are on the point of
settled legal position, of which there is no dispute, but facts in those
cases are distinct than the one in the case in hand.
17. For all above reasons, this court finds no merit,
irregularity or illegality on the part of Special Judge in invoking
powers under section 175(3) of B.N.N.S. directing investigation at
the hands of police. For above reasons, no case being made out to
interfere, I proceed to pass the following order :-
ORDER
Both Criminal Revision Applications stand dismissed.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
