Lionlender Finance Pvt. Ltd. Thr Its ... vs State Police Complaints Authority, ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 369 Bom

Bombay High Court

Lionlender Finance Pvt. Ltd. Thr Its ... vs State Police Complaints Authority, ... on 7 July, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:6361




              Judgment

                                                                424 wp174.25



                                           1

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

                     CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.174 OF 2025

              Lionlender Finance Pvt.Ltd.,
              A Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC),
              registered with the Reserve Bank of India,
              through its authorized representative,
              branch manager, Mr.Nitin John Bosco John,
              registered office at : plot No.223, shop No.04, 05, 06,
              first floor, Umiya Leela Apartment, Near
              Lakadganj Garden, Chapru Nagar,
              Lakadganj, Nagpur,
              Maharashtra-440008.                     ..... Petitioner.

                                   :: V E R S U S ::

              1. State Police Complaints Authority, Maharashtra State,
              Mumbai.
              MTNL Cooperage Telephone Exchange Building, 4th
              Floor, Maharshi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai,
              Maharashtra-400021.

              2. Shri Sandip Chandewar, Police Inspector, Lakadganj
              Police Station, Nagpur.

              3. Shri Harsha A.Poddar, Superintendent of Police, Nagpur.

              4. Shri Ravindar Singhal,
              Commissioner of Police, Nagpur.      ..... Respondents.



                                                                        .....2/-
 Judgment

                                                 424 wp174.25



                             2

Ms.Mansi V.Bali, Counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri N.R.Rode, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
CLOSED ON : 26/06/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 07/07/2025

JUDGMENT

1. Heard. Rule. Heard finally by consent of learned

counsel appearing for parties.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged

order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the State Police

Complaints Authority, Maharashtra State, Mumbai (SPCA)

in SPCA/Complaint Case No.164/2024.

3. It is contention of the petitioner that the petitioner

is "A Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC)" which

granted loan of Rs.25.00 lacs to "M/s.G.B.Enterprises"

through Prop. Mrs.Neeta M.Dawda and other three co-

accused by sanction letter dated 5.6.2023 for business

.....3/-

Judgment

424 wp174.25

purpose on the basis of Income Tax Returns and Balance

Sheet signed by the co-accused. On due execution of

documents, loan was sanctioned on 7.6.2023. However,

said debtors hatched conspiracy and fraudulently induced

complainant to sanction business loan of Rs.25.00 lacs by

misrepresenting financial credibility of

"M/s.G.B.Enterprises" showing annual turn over of

Rs.5.00 crores, assets at Rs.44.00 lacs falsely and Balance

Sheets are also prepared accordingly. As per contentions

of the petitioner, Director of the said company and the

company are the willful defaulters and not paid

installments as agreed. It was willful default which is

recognized as an offence in view of RBI's Master Circular

on Willful Default. Moreover, the company and Directors

have diverted loan amount for other purposes without

knowledge of the petitioner and thus they committed the

offence of criminal breach of trust, misappropriation of

.....4/-

Judgment

424 wp174.25

money, and cheating in collusion with each other.

Cheques issued against monthly installments were also

dishonoured and, therefore, the petitioner approached the

Lakadganj Police Station, Nagpur and the Economic

Offence Wing on 1.10.2024. However, the grievance of

the petitioner was not taken into consideration although

the said complaint disclosed commission of cognizable

offence and the same was not registered. It was further

reported to the petitioner by the concerned police officers

that the subject-matter of the complaint lodged by the

petitioner is of a civil nature and, therefore, the

petitioner approached the SPCA for taking an appropriate

action against the concerned police officers and was

requested to direct the concerned police officers to

registered the offence.

.....5/-

Judgment

424 wp174.25

4. The SPCA, on perusal of the complaint, observed

that the complaint appears to have taken place on

5.6.2023/7.6.2023 when the above referred business

loan was sanctioned to the opponent and when they

executed documents. In view of Regulation No.4(b) of

SPCA Regulations, there is a bar to entertain complaints

when presented after one year from alleged act and/or

inaction and dismiss complaints. Being aggrieved with

the same, the present writ petition is filed seeking

initiation of disciplinary proceeding against delinquent

officers for willful negligence in performing their statutory

duties and Director to take serious action against the

police officers for superficially rejecting the complaint.

5. Heard learned counsel Ms.Mansi V.Bali for the

petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri

N.R.Rode for the State.

.....6/-

Judgment

424 wp174.25

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the authority has misinterpreted Regulation No.4(b) of

the Regulations 2017 which specifically states, when

complaint is presented after one year from alleged

act/inaction.

7. In the present case, inaction on the part of the

police officers is on 1.10.2024 and 3.10.2024. The

complaint is filed by the petitioner on 26.11.2024 . She

specifically submitted that in view of Section 22-Q(1)(a)

of the Maharashtra Police (Amendment) Act, 2024 read

with Sections 173 to 176 of the BNSS 2023 and Sections

198 to 201 of the BNS 2023, strict action against police

officers for the willful negligence on their part while

discharging their statutory and mandatory duties and

acting in consonance with the accused. She submitted

that the authority has not taken into consideration that

.....7/-

Judgment

424 wp174.25

inaction was on the part of the police officers on

1.10.2024 and 3.10.2024 and lastly on 12.11.2024. She

also invited my attention towards definitions given in

Regulation No.2 of the SPCA Regulations 2017. As per

Clause (n) of the said Regulation No.2, "misconduct"

means any willful breach or neglect by a police officer of

any law, rule and regulation applicable to the police that

adversely affect the rights of any member of public, as

defined in Section 22-Q(1)(a)(i to viii) of the Act. She

submitted that not taking cognizance by the police officer

covers under the definition of "misconduct". In view of

that, necessary directions be given to the police officers to

register the offence.

She also placed reliance on the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh and ors

vs. Union of India and ors, reported in (2006)8 SCC 1

.....8/-

Judgment

424 wp174.25

wherein it is held that the commitment, devotion and

accountability of the police has to be only to the Rule of

Law. The supervision and control has to be such that it

ensures that the police serves the people without any

regard, whatsoever, to the status and position of any

person while investigating a crime or taking preventive

measures. Its approach has to be service oriented, its role

has to be defined so that in appropriate cases, where on

account of acts of omission and commission of police, the

Rule of Law becomes a casualty, the guilty Police Officers

are brought to book and appropriate action taken without

any delay.

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

supported the order impugned in the petition.

9. It is pertinent to note that pursuant to

recommendations and directions given by the Hon'ble

.....9/-

Judgment

424 wp174.25

Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh and ors vs. Union

of India and ors supra, the Police Complaints Authority

was constituted. Accordingly, the Maharashtra Police Act,

1951 was amended by the Maharashtra Police

(Amendment and Continuance) Act, 2014 and Sections

22P, 22Q(1)(a) and Section 22R were introduced apart

from other provisions. Accordingly, SPCA has been

constituted by the State Government to entertain the

complaint against police officers and police personnel

who failed to perform their duties and functions. Section

22Q(1)a) reads thus:

"22Q. (1) The State Police Complaints Authority shall exercise the powers and perform the functions as follows : -

(a) inquire suo-moto or on a complaint against Police Officers presented to it by, -

.....10/-

Judgment

424 wp174.25

(i) a victim or any member of his family or any other person on his behalf;

(ii) the National or State Human Rights Commission; and

(iii) the police, into the complaint of, -

(i) death in police custody;

(ii) grievous hurt as defined under section 320 of the Indian Penal Code:

(iii) rape or attempt to commit rape;

(iv) arrest or detention without following the prescribed procedure;

(v) corruption;

(vi) extortion;

(vii) land or house grabbing; and

.....11/-

Judgment

424 wp174.25

(viii) any other matter involving serious violation of any provision of law or abuse of lawful authority".

10. Section 22R(1) and (4) deals with procedure

followed by the SPCA on completion of enquiry and steps

to be taken by the State Government upon receiving

SPCA's enquiry report.

11. Perusal of the aforesaid provisions shows that it is

evident that the mandate of the SPCA is to conduct an

enquiry against police officers with respect to the

acts/offences spelt out in the said provisions.

12. Here, in the present case, in view of Regulation

4(b), the complaint is dismissed by the authority.

13. Regulation 4 of SPCA Regulations 2017, is

reproduced for reference:

.....12/-

Judgment

424 wp174.25

"4. Complaints not ordinarily entertainable. - The Authority shall dismiss, in limine, complaints of the following nature, namely:--

(a) vague, anonymous, pseudonymous, illegible, trivial or frivolous:

(b) when the complaint is presented after one year from alleged act and or inaction;

(c) shall not inquire in Civil disputes, etc. except against Police Officers indulging in house or land grabbing, etc:,

(d) relate to service matters or labour or industrial disputes;

(e) matter is sub-judice before a court or any tribunal;

(f) matter is covered by a judicial verdict or decision of the Tribunal or any other judicial or Quasi-Judicial Authority;

.....13/-

Judgment

424 wp174.25

(g) matter is outside the purview of the State Authority, and

(h) the complaint has not been made to senior supervisory officer or one months has not elapsed since filing of such complaint."

14. Thus, in view of Regulation 4(b), the complaint is

to be presented after one year from alleged act/inaction.

15. In the present case, the alleged act refers to the

inaction on the part of the police officers. The authority

has taken into consideration the date when the loan was

disbursed to the debtor company. For filing complaint

by the petitioner, cause of action arose on 1.10.2024,

3.10.2024, and lastly on 12.11.2024 when the police

officers of Lakadganj Police Station have not taken any

action on the complaint filed the petitioner and,

therefore, limitation would start from the date when there

.....14/-

Judgment

424 wp174.25

was inaction on the part of the police officers and not

from 5.6.2023/7.6.2023.

16. In the present case, the important aspect is the

alleged act of the police officers and inaction on their

parts is of dated 1.10.2024 and 3.10.2024 and lastly on

12.11.2024

17. In this view of the matter, as the authority has not

considered complaint on merits and has dismissed the

same as not within limitation, it would be appropriate to

remand back the complaint to the SPCA for

reconsideration and to decide it on its own merits.

18. As such, I proceed to pass following order:

ORDER

(1) The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed.

.....15/-

Judgment

424 wp174.25

(2) SPCA/Complaint Case No.164/2024 is remanded back

to the SPCA for reconsideration and to dispose of the

same on merits.

Criminal Application(s), if any, also stand(s)

disposed of.

Rule accordingly.

Petition stands disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) !! BrWankhede !!

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../- Date: 08/07/2025 11:48:29