Bombay High Court
Ajinkya S/O Acchutrao Koratkar vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Awdhootwadi ... on 6 October, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:10245-DB
J-APL 964-2022.odt 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL)NO.964/2022
Ajinkya S/o Acchutrao Koratkar
Aged about 29 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o. House no.12, "Prasad"
Deepnagar, Yavatmal, tq. &
Distt. Yavatmal.
... APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Awdhootwadi,
Yavatmal, Tq. & Distt. Yavatmal.
2. Dnyaneshwar S/o. Rambhau Gobre,
aged about 66 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o. 57, Kolhe Layout,
Yavatmal, tq. & Distt. Yavatmal.
...NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri. A.V. Bhide, Advocate for applicants
Shri. M.J. Khan, APP for non-applicant No.1/State
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 09.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 06.10.2025
JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned
Counsel for the parties.
2. This is an application seeking to quash the charge-sheet,
bearing crime No. 208/2019, filed by Awadhootwadi Police Station,
District Yavatmal, for the offences punishable under Sections 420,
406, 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as also
Section 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of
Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (hereinafter
referred as 'the MPID Act').
3. The applicant herein claims that he is not concerned in any
way with Shri Sant Gadagebaba Nagri and Gramin Vyasaik Co-
operative Society Pat Sanstha (hereinafter referred to as 'the said
society'). He was assured by the office bearers of the said society of
a job as a clerk in the said society, but as a matter of fact he was
never an employee of the said society, and therefore, had no role to
play in the affairs of the said society.
4. It is further alleged in the First Information Report lodged by
the non-applicant No.2, to the non-applicant No.1, on 06.03.2018,
that the said society did not return the deposits taken by them and
have committed an offence as mentioned in the above sections. On
the basis of the said First Information Report, investigation was
carried out and the non-applicant No.1 filed a charge-sheet against
office bearers of the said society which included the applicant
herein. There are total seventeen accused named in the charge-
sheet and the applicant is accused No. 16. Present application is
filed challenging the said First Information Report and the
consequent charge-sheet.
5. We have heard Shri. A.V. Bhide, the learned Counsel for the
applicant, as also Shri M.J. Khan, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.1/State.
6. It is the sole contention of Shri. A.V. Bhide, learned Counsel
for the applicant that the applicant is in no way concerned with the
affairs of the said society, and therefore, he cannot be prosecuted
under the sections referred supra. He has taken us through the
various documents filed with the charge-sheet to support his
contention. It is therefore the submission of the learned Counsel for
the applicant that no offence is made out, and therefore, it would
be a fit case to quash the said charge-sheet by this Court by
resorting to its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code.
7. On the other hand, Shri. M.J. Khan, the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for non-applicant No.1/State, vehemently
opposed the submissions of the learned Counsel for the applicants
and states that all the office bearers and employees of the society
are jointly and severally liable for the financial embezzlement
caused in the said society. He further submits that a prima facie look
at the averments in the First Information Report and the charge-
sheet will indicate that the offences as mentioned in the First
Information Report are made out.
8. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions
advanced by the Counsel for the respective parties.
9. At this stage, Section 3 of the the MPID Act would be relevant
which is reproduced as under :
"3. Fraudulent default by Financial Establishment
Any Financial Establishment, which fraudulently
defaults any repayment of deposit on maturity alongwith
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, be punished with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to six years and with fine which may
extend to one lac of rupees and such Financial
Establishment also shall liable for a fine which may
extend to one lac of rupees.
Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, a Financial
Establishment, which commits default in repayment of
such deposit with such benefits in the form of interest,
bonus, profit or in any other form as promised or fails to
render any specified service promised against such
deposit, or fails to render any specific service agreed
against the deposit with an intention of causing
wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another
person or commits such default due to its inability
arising out of impracticable or commercially not viable
promises made while accepting such deposit or arising
out of deployment of money or assets acquired out of
the deposits in such a manner as it involves inherent risk
in recovering the same when needed shall, be deemed to
have committed a default or failed to render the specific
service, fraudulently."
10. As can be seen from the definition of the said section, it is an
inclusive definition and takes into it's sweep 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. It can thus be seen that an employee
responsible for the management of or conducting of the business of
the said financial establishment is liable for punishment as
mentioned under the said Section.
11. Furthermore, the explanation to Section 3 of the MPID Act
amplifies the position and states that such a financial establishment
which commits default in repayment of such deposit with an
intention of wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to
another person or commits such default due to its inability arising
out of in-practicable, or commercially not viable promises made by
accepting such deposit shall be deemed to have committed a default
or failed to render the specific service fraudulently.
12. It is therefore, clear that the explanation to Section 3 of the
MPID Act, is a deeming provision against the financial
establishment committing default. In the light of these provisions, if
we perused the charge-sheet filed on record, there are statements of
depositors which clearly named the applicant that he was working
as a clerk with the said society. Such statements are made by
various depositors namely Vikas Wamanrao Venurkar, Vaman
Sakharam Rathod and others to name a few, inasmuch as, in our
view, all the depositors have named the applicant and stated that he
was working with the said society as a clerk. The applicant,
therefore, in our view would come into sweep of Section 3 of the
MPID Act, stated supra. Furthermore, as can be seen from the reply
of the non-applicants, the prosecution has in unequivocal term
stated that during the course of the investigation, it has collected
the muster roll and register indicating the salary/remuneration paid
to the present applicant.
13. In that view of the matter, there is prima facie material which
incriminates the applicant with the offences with which he is
charged. It is therefore, not a fit case to exercise inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The
application is without merit and is therefore rejected.
ORDER
The application is rejected.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Jayashree..
