Bombay High Court
Sonali Sameer Paltewar vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Police ... on 12 November, 2025
1
aba768.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.768/2025
(Sonali Sameer Paltewar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Police Inspector, Sitabuldi Police
Station, Economic Offence Wing, Nagpur)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Arshad Sheikh with Ms. Gitika Khanchandani, Ms. Sandhya Maniyar, Mr.
Ranjeet Agashe, Ms. Vinsha Acharya, Advocates for the applicant.
CORAM: MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER: 10.11.2025.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER: 12.11.2025.
The applicants have apprehension of arrest in Crime
No.833/2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 406, 420
and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The F.I.R. was lodged by one of the Directors of the Company
Mr. Ganesh Chakkarwar. Dr. Sameer Paltewar who is the husband of
applicant No.1 and father of applicant Nos.2 and 3 is one of the
Directors of the Meditrina. It is alleged that complainant transferred
17% out of 50% of his shares to Dr. Sameer Paltewar. The informant
also appointed wife of Dr. Sameer Paltewar i.e. applicant No.1 in 2018
as the Director of the Company. In 2018 informant filed a police
complaint against Sameer Paltewar at Sitabuldi Police Station alleging
that Dr. Paltewar was unilaterally charging extra money from patients
admitted under the government run Rajiv Gandhi Jeevandayi
(Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Jeevandayi) Scheme without first
informant's permission.
3. In 2018 during Covid period the informant filed another case
against Mr. Sameer Paltewar for giving patients undergoing treatment
aba768.2025.odt
at Meditrina Hospital high value bills but then tampering with records
to show a smaller value. Mr. Sameer Paltewar, Mrs. Sonali Paltewar
and their son Ninad Paltewar established a Company called 'Obviate
Health Care Private Limited. It is alleged that under the name of
medical consultancy they withdrew a total amount of
Rs.11,41,70,540/- from the bank account of Meditrina Institute of
Medical Sciences Private Limited. Money was withdrawn from the
Company's bank account without the permission of the first informant
which constitutes financial fraud against the informant and the
Company.
4. Between 2020 to 2024 the Directors of the Company Dr.
Sameer Paltewar and Mrs. Sonali Paltewar and Directors of Obviate
Health Care Private Limited and the office staff continued to cause
cheating and misappropriation. They misappropriated
Rs.16,83,78,915/- from the Company by making false bills under the
pretext of digital marketing advertisement for their financial gain.
5. Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that the offences
are alleged from 2020 onwards. However, the offence is registered
only in the year 2025. The applicant Nos.2 and 3 being no way
associated with the Company V.R.G., the question of commission of
alleged offence by both of them does not arise. They are not entrusted
with any property of the Company V.R.G. The question of
misappropriation or cheating as defined under Sections 405, 409 and
420 of I.P.C. does not arise. The only role attributed to applicant
Nos.2 and 3 is that the Company Obviate in which they are the
Directors have received money from V.R.G. The present applicants are
only indicated in the F.I.R. being wife, son and daughter of Dr. Sameer
aba768.2025.odt
Paltewar so as to cause more harassment without assigning any role
against the applicants.
6. It is the case of the applicants that informant Mr. Ganesh
Chakkarwar has committed several irregularities to the tune of more
than Rs.14 Crores. It was found that without consultation with Board
of Directors Mr. Chakkarwar on his own gave loans of
Rs.3,19,55,358/-. It was also found that Mr. Chakkarwar was
charging interest at the rate of Rs.18% per annum on the unsecured
loans granted by him. The Company has filed three civil suits against
the relatives and other companies of Mr. Chakkarwar for recovery of
money. Several complaints were lodged by Dr. Paltewar against
Chakkarwar but no cognizance was taken by the police. The writ
petition was also filed by Dr. Paltewar before this Court seeking
directions for registration of offence against Mr. Chakkarwar.
Thereafter resolution was passed for removal of Mr. Chakkarwar from
the Board of Directors of the Company. The complainant approached
N.C.L.T against the said resolution by filing Company Petition and the
stay to said resolution was granted by the N.C.L.T. It is urged by the
learned Advocate for the applicants that present F.I.R. is a direct
impact of crucial Resolution passed by the Company on 19.4.2025.
N.C.L.T. has appointed an Administrator for said Company. Only
because Dr. Paltewar has taken action against the first informant, the
F.I.R. is registered.
7. It is urged that the crime is shown to be continued from
1.4.2020 to 31.3.2024. In 2020 applicant No.3 was 14 years of age.
Applicant No.2 was 19 years of age. He was taking education in
2020. Applicant No.1 is the wife of Dr. Sameer Paltewar and she is
aba768.2025.odt
not a Doctor but she is an Architect. She is a share holder of said
Company. The complaint was lodged about mismanagement of
Company and N.C.L.T. has passed the order and appointed an
Administrator.
8. The accused No.1 i.e. Sameer Paltewar is arrested in this
offence. The offence against applicant Nos.2 and 3 is not registered
but as they are Directors of Obviate Company and allegations are
made against said Company, they have an apprehension of arrest.
9. It is further argued that offence under Section 409 of I.P.C. is
registered. As per the provisions of section 409 of I.P.C. it is against
public servant. The Company is a private Company and offence
under Section 409 of I.P.C. will not be attracted. For the offence
under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C. punishment is not more than 3
years. Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C. will not go hand-in-hand. He
has relied on the observations made in judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Arshad Neyaz Khan V/s. State of Jharkhand and
another reported in 2025 DGLS 9SC 1249.
"21. Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention that if it is
the case of the complainant/respondent No.2 that the
offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under
Section 405 IPC, punishable under Section 406 IPC, is
committed by the accused, then in the same breath it
cannot be said that the accused has also committed the
offence of cheating as defined in Section 415,
punishable under Section 420 IPC. This Court in Delhi
Race Club (1940) Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
(2024) 10 SCC 690 observed that there is a distinction
between criminal breach of trust and cheating. For
cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of
making false or misleading representation i.e. since
inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of
entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal
aba768.2025.odt
breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with
the property, and he dishonestly misappropriates the
same. Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender
fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by
deceiving him to deliver a property. In such a situation,
both offences cannot co-exist simultaneously.
Consequently, the complaint cannot contain both the
offences that are independent and distinct. The said
offences cannot co-exist simultaneously in the same set
of facts as they are antithetical to each other."
10. In support of argument that there is an arbitration clause and
the dispute is between two Directors of the Company, reliance is
placed on the judgment of this Court in case of Tejas Lalit Soni V/s.
State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2025 DGLS (Bom.)
1633. The civil litigations are pending against the first informant.
Reliance is also placed on (2024) 13 SCC 614 (Jay Shri and another
V/s. State of Rajasthan) wherein it is observed that mere breach of
contract does not amount to an offence under Section 420 or 406 of
I.P.C. unless fraudulent dishonest intention is shown right at the
beginning of transaction. It is cautioned by the Supreme Court about
converting purely civil disputes into criminal cases. Any effort to
settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal
offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be
deprecated and discouraged. The applicants have pointed out that
when the husband of applicant No.1 has filed complaints against the
first informant, the police had asked him to go before different
authorities for redressal of his grievance. There are no allegations
about cash transactions against these applicants. The properties of
the applicants are already seized. The custodial interrogation of these
applicants is not required. Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the students.
aba768.2025.odt
Their future will be spoiled if they are taken in custody. Applicant
No.1 is an Architect. There are no allegations against all these three
applicants. The allegations are against accused No.1 Dr. Sameer
Paltewar who is already arrested and the properties are also seized.
In such a situation, the custodial interrogation of these applicants is
not necessary. Hence, prayed to protect the applicants by grating
anticipatory bail.
11. The learned A.P.P. opposed the application stating that an
offence under Section 409 of I.P.C. is registered against these
applicants which does not limit to public servant. The applicants are
the Directors of the Company and as per definition it includes 'agent'
and, therefore, an offence under Section 409 of I.P.C. will be
attracted. The criminal past records of these applicants are not
disclosed. The applicant Nos.2 and 3 since they attained majority
started getting salary in lakhs. Though no event was conducted in the
name of Meditrina, the bills were given in the name of Meditrina
which amounts to breach of trust. The address of Obviate is the same
to that of Meditrina. Though applicants have stated that they have
co-operated with the police, it is only after umbrella of protection by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and they appeared before the police.
Criminal acts of applicants are not disclosed which is mandatory as
per the observations made in the case of Munnesh V/s. State of Uttar
Pradesh [Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.)
No(s).1400/2025]. The applicant Nos.2 and 3 though are students
they have received huge amount of salary and they are Directors and
custodial interrogation of these applicants is necessary. Hence, prayed
to reject the application.
aba768.2025.odt
12. The complainant has filed an application to assist the
prosecution. The learned Advocate for the complainant has filed
written notes of arguments and opposed the application stating that
an arbitration cannot be a substitute to the criminal prosecution. An
offence under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act
will be attracted against these applicants. Being Directors, they are
agents of the Company and, therefore, offence under Section 409 of
I.P.C. will be attracted against these applicants. He has stated that
bail application is misleading which tries to give criminal conduct a
look of civil dispute. The complainant has relied on the judgments in
support of his argument that the victim has right to oppose the
application. As the applicant/complainant is allowed to argue the
matter and has filed written notes of arguments, no need to consider
the said judgments. Other judgments are also considered which the
applicant/complainant has filed on record.
13. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicants, learned A.P.P.
and the learned Advocate for the first informant.
14. It appears from the record that the applicants are the family
members of the accused No.1 who is arrested and is in jail. The first
informant and the accused No.1 Sameer Paltewar are the Directors of
the Company. The dispute arose between both of them and they have
lodged complaints against each other. Due to mismanagement in the
Company, complaint was lodged before N.C.L.T., it has taken
cognizance and an Administrator is appointed. Before lodging of the
F.I.Rs. it reveals from the documents filed on record that resolution
was passed by the Board of Directors of the Company for removal of
the first informant from the Board. The stay was granted by the
aba768.2025.odt
N.C.L.T. to said removal. It is brought to the notice of this Court that
the civil suits are pending against the first informant. The criminal
complaints which were lodged by accused No.1 against the first
informant, an advise was given to go before the different authorities
for redressal of his grievance. The cognizance was not taken by the
police on the complaints lodged by accused No.1.
15. On perusal of F.I.R. it appears that all the allegations are made
against accused No.1. Though salary was shown to be given to
applicant Nos.2 and 3, applicant No.2 is a Doctor, he was 19 years of
age at that time and applicant No.3 was minor when the offence is
stated to have commenced. According to learned Advocate for the
applicants this act amounts to criminal activity and is not disclosed.
Although applicant Nos.2 and 3 are directors of Company, it appears
from the material placed on record, prima facie, that they might not
have been involved in each and every aspect of misappropriation of
funds. The reliance is placed on the observations made by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia:Sarbajit Singh V/s.
State of Punjab reported in 1980 DGLS (SC) 179 in support of
argument that for granting anticipatory bail there must be a 'special
case. Observations are made "one ought not to make a bugbear of
power to grant anticipatory bail". Reliance is also placed on the
judgment in the case of Harsh Sawhney V/s. Union Territory
Chandigarh reported in 1978 DGLS (SC) 64 wherein it is observed
that documents can be recovered without taking the applicant in
custody. Considering the civil nature of the allegations and the fact
that civil suits are pending, N.C.L.T. has taken cognizance and an
aba768.2025.odt
Administrator is already appointed, custodial interrogation of these
applicants is not required. Hence, the application is allowed.
i) It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants - Sonali
Sameer Paltewar, Ninad Sameer Paltewar and Paulomi Sameer Paltewar,
in connection with Crime No.833/2025, registered with Sitabuldi
Police Station, Economic Offence Wing, Nagpur for the offence
punishable under Sections 409, 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code, the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R.
Bond in the sum of Rupees Twenty Five Thousand each with one
solvent surety in the like amount.
ii) The applicants shall not in any way tamper with the prosecution
evidence.
iii) The applicants shall not pressurize or threaten the prosecution
witnesses.
iv) The applicants shall attend the concerned Police Station on every
Monday between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.
v) The applicants shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer.
vi) The applicants to surrender their passports, if any.
vii) The applicants are directed not to leave country till filing of the
chargesheet without permission of the Court.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V.JOSHI, J.)
Tambaskar.
Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/11/2025 16:24:46
