Prashant Jain S/O Jeevraj Jain vs State Of Maharashtra
2025 Latest Caselaw 9170 Bom

Bombay High Court

Prashant Jain S/O Jeevraj Jain vs State Of Maharashtra on 22 December, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:14744-DB


                        APL-D-1133-2023.odt                                                                  1/11




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR


                                    CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL)NO.1133 OF 2023



                                Prashant Jain S/o Jeevraj Jain
                                Aged: 46 years,
                                Occ: Insolvency Professional registered
                                with IBBI bearing IBBI no IBBI/IPA-
                                001/IP-P01368/2018-2019/12131
                                R/o A501, Shanti Heights, Plot No.
                                2,3,9B/10, Sector 11,
                                Koparkharine, Thane, Navi Mumbai,
                                Maharashtra, 400709
                                                                                               ... APPLICANT
                                                  ...VERSUS...

                        1.      State of Maharashtra,
                                Through the Police Station Officer,
                                Hinganghat Police Station, Wardha.

                        2.      Sub-Divisional Officer,
                                Wardha
                                                                                         ...NON-APPLICANTS
                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Shri G.D. Dani, Advocate for applicants
                        Ms S.S. Dhote, APP for non-applicant No.1/State
                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                RESERVED ON                        : 10.12.2025
                                PRONOUNCED ON                      : 22.12.2025
 APL-D-1133-2023.odt                                         2/11




JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)

Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned

Counsel for both the parties.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal

Procedure Code for quashing of the charge-sheet, registered as

Summary Criminal Case No. 97/2021 for an offence punishable

under Sections 188, 269 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 51 (b)

and 58 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and Section 2, 3 and

4 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, read with Maharashtra Covid-

19 Resolution, 2020.

3. It is the case of the applicant and as can be seen from the

application, the Directors of M/s Mohota Industries Limited,

Hinganghat, were facing financial crisis and unable to cover their

liabilities with their income and therefore in the year 2019, the

creditors of the said industry filed a company petition bearing

Company Petition No. 4500/2009, under Section 9 of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as

'IBC') for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against

the said industry. It is further submitted in the application that the

applicant herein was appointed as an Insolvency Resolution

Professional (hereinafter referred to as 'IRP') vide order dated

23.01.2020. However, on 20.02.2020, he received an application

from the operational creditor of said Industry under Resolution 30

(A) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India for withdrawal

of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to

as 'CIRP'), and the applicant therefore filed an application in the

National Company Law Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as 'NCLT')

Mumbai, on 21/02/2020. It was thus clear that even though the

applicant was working as IRP, it was clear that his role was at an

end, and the reins of the company would go back to the hands of

the directors of the said company. The applicant took all efforts to

fulfill his obligations and to pay wages to the workers, which were

pending since considerable time.

4. In such a situation, on 24.03.2020 the nation went in a state

of strict lockdown due to Covid-19 pandemic situation and the

Government of India passed an order of 29.03.2020 for the benefit

of the factory workers stipulating that during the period of

lockdown, even if factory workers were not doing any actual work,

the factory owners were prohibited from retrenching them and they

were further directed to continue to pay the salary/wages of such

workers. However, since Mohota Industries was unable to pay the

wages as directed by the Government of India, several complaints

were made with the Labour Union and the Government authorities

seeking directions to compel the payment of wages. Thus, even if,

the applicant had no personal stakes in the company, since he was

only working as an IRP as per the orders of the NCLT. In this

background, the non-applicant No. 2 passed an order dated

22.04.2020 directing the non-applicant No. 1 to file the First

Information Report against the applicant. Thus, the subject First

Information Report was filed, and an investigation the charge-sheet

was filed before the Court as stated above. It is this charge-sheet

and the consequent criminal proceedings which are challenged in

the present application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal

Procedure Code.

5. We have heard Shri G.D. Dani, learned Counsel for the

applicant, as also, Ms S.S. Dhote, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for non-applicant No.1/State.

6. Shri G.D. Dani, learned Counsel for the applicant, submits

that a bare perusal of the charge-sheet would show that no offence

as alleged in the First Information Report and the charge-sheet is

made out, and the entire criminal prosecution is nothing but an

abuse of the process of the Court. He further submits that the

authority, more particularly, the non-applicant No. 2, has failed to

appreciate that the applicant was only working as IRP and therefore

was protected by virtue of Section 233 of the IBC. He further

submits that in the present facts, the applicant had no stake in

preserving the funds of the company and by preserving such funds

no funds would have gone in the pocket of applicant. Thus, in his

submission, the applicant is in no way concerned with the alleged

breach of orders of the State Government or the Central

Government, and no offence is made out.

7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while

opposing the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the

applicant, submits that there is enough material on record to

proceed against the applicant. She submits that, even though the

Board of Directors was dissolved and the applicant was appointed

as an IRP, he was liable to pay the wages of the laborers during the

period of lockdown, and since it is an admitted position that the

said wages were not paid, the offence was committed. She

therefore prays for rejection of the application.

8. In the backdrop of these facts, we have perused the First

Information Report and the charge-sheet in question. The offences

complained of are punishable under Sections 188 and 269 of the

Indian Penal Code. Section 188 speaks about disobedience of an

order duly promulgated by a public servant. However, Section 195

of the Criminal Procedure Code expressly bars the code from taking

cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 188, except

when the complaint is made in writing by the public servant

concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is

administratively subordinate. In the present case, the complaint has

been lodged by the Tahasildar, who is allegedly authorized by the

non-applicant No. 2/Sub Divisional Officer. However, there is

nothing on record to show that either the Sub Divisional Officer or

the Tahasildar has been authorized by the State to lodge such a

prosecution. Thus, there is an express bar to take cognizance of the

offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. As

far as offence under Section 269 is concerned, it speaks about a

negligent act likely to spread infection of a disease dangerous to

life. Even a meaningful reading of the First Information Report

would reveal that this is not even the informant's case that the

applicant has unlawfully or negligently did any act which he knows

or has reason to believe to be likely to spread the infection of any

disease dangerous to life. Thus, the ingredients of said offence are

also not made out.

9. As far as offence under Section 51(b) of the Disaster

Management Act, 2005, is concerned, it speaks about punishment

for obstruction without reasonable cause to comply with any

direction given by or on behalf of the Central Government or the

State Government under the Act. However, Section 59 of the said

Act provides that no prosecution for an offence punishable under

Section 55 shall be instituted except the previous sanction of the

Central Government or the State Government, or any officer

authorized in that behalf. There is nothing on record to show such

an authorization by the Central Government or the State

Government. In that view of the matter, it is clear that Section

51(b)of the Act is also not made out. Furthermore, as far as

offences under Sections 2 and 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897

are concerned, the ingredients of the said offences are also not

made out since the said sections speak about power of the Central

Government to take special measures and prescribe regulations as

to dangerous epidemic diseases. Furthermore, Section 3 of the said

Act contemplates that if offence under Section 2 is committed, it

shall be deemed that the said person has committed an offence

punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. However,

as discussed above, cognizance of the offence punishable under

Section 188 is expressly barred in view of the provisions of Section

195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Furthermore, there is no

question of invoking Section 4 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, since it

speaks about protection to persons acting in good faith. Likewise,

there is no ingredient to attract breach of Regulation 11 of the

Maharashtra Covid-19 Regulations.