Rajendra Suryabhan Upadhye vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Police ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6057 Bom

Bombay High Court

Rajendra Suryabhan Upadhye vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Police ... on 24 September, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:9813-DB




              Judgment

                                                                     480 apl216.24

                                            1

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


                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.216 OF 2024

              Rajendra s/o Suryabhan
              Upadhye, age 42, occupation:
              business, r/o flat No.1 304 SR
              No.256/2 Parksyte Homes,
              Panchvati, Opposite Rajbhihari
              School, near Bali Mandir,
              Nashik, Maharashtra.                  ..... Applicant.

                                    :: V E R S U S ::

              1. The State of Maharashtra,
              through Police Station Officer,
              Police Station - Civil Lines Police
              Station, Akola.

              2. Dr.Kishor Shridharrao Dhone, A/a
              - 45 years, occupation - Doctor,
              resident of flat No. , Ravi Nagar,
              Goenka Layout, Civil Lines, Akola,
              Maharashtra.                     ..... Non-applicants.

              Shri Ashish Deep Verma, Counsel and Shri A.P.Vyas, Advocate
              for the Applicant.
              Shri S.S.Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
              Respondents/State.

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

                                                                           .....2/-
 Judgment

                                                480 apl216.24

                            2



CLOSED ON : 19/09/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 24/09/2025


JUDGMENT ( Per : Urmila Joshi-Phalke)

1. The present application is preferred by the

applicant for quashing of the FIR in connection with Crime

No.470/2023 registered under Sections 406 and 420 read

with 34 of the IPC.

2. The applicant is arraigned as an accused on the

basis of report lodged by Dr.Kishor Shridharrao Dhone on

allegations that he was induced to invest the amount on

promise that he would receive handsome returns from the

said investment. Accordingly, he has invested the amount

in a scheme floated by the company namely "Platin Ultima

Scheme". The applicant is head of the company for

Maharashtra which has floated the scheme and assurance

was given that investors would get the handsome returns

.....3/-

Judgment

480 apl216.24

on depositing or investing amounts. However, despite

investing amounts, the complainant has not received any

amount and therefore, he approached the police station

and lodged the report. On the basis of the said report, the

police registered the offence against the applicant.

3. Heard learned counsel Shri Ashish Deep Verma

for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor

Shri S.S.Doifode for the State.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted

that as far as the applicant is concerned, absolutely, there

is no allegations against him except he attended meeting.

Therefore, no prima facie case is made out against the

applicant. He submitted that as far as other criminal

antecedents are concerned, which are offences registered

subsequent to the present crime. Even, accepting that,

mere registration of the offence is not sufficient to reject

.....4/-

Judgment

480 apl216.24

the application of the applicant considering no prima facie

case is made out against him, the FIR registered against

the applicant deserves to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

for the State has opposed the application on the ground

that as the applicant is absconding since registration of the

crime and look out notice is also issued against him on

13.2.2024, powers cannot be used in his favour. He

further submitted that look out circular is already issued

against the applicant who is residing in Dubai. It is further

submitted by him that the said scheme is nothing but

fraud played upon the investors by using Multi Level

Marketing Scheme and by misusing he Format of Crypto

Currency. The accused in this crime was having

knowledge that such returns of the invested amounts

cannot be returned to the investors and lured the investors

and gave them promise of crypto currency which are

.....5/-

Judgment

480 apl216.24

absolutely worthless thereby causing huge financial loss to

the investors. He submitted that considering four other

offences are registered against the applicant and he is

absconding since the registration of the offence and

staying in Dubai, inherent powers cannot be used against

the applicant.

6. In support of his contentions, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State placed reliance

on Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai

Karmur and ors vs. State of Gujarat and anr, reported in

AIR 2017 SC 4843.

7. On hearing both the sides and perusing entire

record, there is no dispute as to the fact that the applicant

was working for company namely "Platin Ultima Scheme"

and he was head of the company for Maharashtra. Recital

of the FIR shows that the applicant and other office

.....6/-

Judgment

480 apl216.24

bearers of the said company lured the various investors

including the complainant by giving promise of handsome

returns and called investment from them. It further

reveals that the scheme was floated on the promise that

they would get crypto currency. They have also given the

coins of crypto currency. As far as merits of the matter is

concerned, admittedly, there is an allegation against the

applicant to the extent of inducement to the various

investors.

8. Question before this court is, whether the

inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC can be

used against the applicant in the background that he is

absconding since registration of the crime and look out

notice is also issued against him.

9. The decision in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir

alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and ors relied upon

.....7/-

Judgment

480 apl216.24

by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State lays

down broad principles which emerge from the precedents

on the aforementioned subject and lays down following

guidelines:

"(1) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

(2) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash

.....8/-

Judgment

480 apl216.24

under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

(3) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

(4) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or

(ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

(5) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

.....9/-

Judgment

480 apl216.24

(6) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;

(7) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

.....10/-

Judgment

480 apl216.24

(8) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

(9) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

(10) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or

.....11/-

Judgment

480 apl216.24

misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance".

10. In the case of Narinder Singh and ors vs. State

of Punjab, reported in (2014)3 SCC 54, the Hon'ble Apex

Court observed that in respect of offence against the

society it is the duty to punish the offender. Hence, even

where there is a settlement between the offender and

victim the same shall not prevail since it is in interests of

the society that offender should be punished which acts as

deterrent for others from committing similar crime. On the

other hand, there may be offences falling in the category

where the correctional objective of criminal law would

have to be given more weightage than the theory of

deterrent punishment. In such cases, the court may be of

the opinion that a settlement between the parties would

.....12/-

Judgment

480 apl216.24

lead to better relations between them and would resolve a

festering private dispute.

11. As far as the facts of the present case are

concerned, the crime is registered against the applicant on

21.12.2023. As the applicant is absconding, various

notices were issued and proceedings were initiated against

the applicant. However he has not appeared before the

investigating officer and, therefore, by order dated

13.2.2024 Superintendent of Police, Akola issued look out

notice against the applicant.

12. As the law in this regard is settled in catena of

decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, including the

decisions in the cases of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal,

reported in MANU/SC/0115/1992, State of Karnataka vs.

M.Devendrappa anr, reported in MANU/SC/0027/2002,

and State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Golconda Linga Swamy

.....13/-

Judgment

480 apl216.24

and anr, reported in MANU/SC/059/2024 and reiterated

that it is not necessary to make any elaborate discussion

on the issue of the abscondence of the accused. But, it is

necessary to state that it is also decided in number of

decisions that the absconding accused who have scant

regard for the legal process, should not be shown any

indulgence while exercising the extra ordinary power

under Section 482 of the CrPC.

13. (In the absence of the accusations, the

prosecution does not have opportunity to adduce the

evidence against the absconding accused. It may be

possible that the witnesses may not have come to the

witness box if the accused is arrested subsequently and

may not have deposed against the accused persons in the

trial for variety of reasons. While considering the prayer

of an accused for quashing of proceeding in exercise of

power under Section 482 of the CrPC, where chances of

.....14/-

Judgment

480 apl216.24

conviction of the accused is bleak, delay in approaching

the court may not be ground for rejecting the application

inf the high is satisfied that allowing the proceedings to

continue will be an exercise in futility and result in

wastage of time and resources of the Court.). It is open to

the High Court to take into account, the bona fides and

conduct of the accused who invokes exercise of the

extraordinary power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Whether such accused absconded or jumped bail, the

reasons for doing so and whether he has waited "for

manipulation of hostility of witnesses"? Conduct of an

accused can be a justifiable reason for the court to refuse

to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

14. Since the accused is a proclaimed offender, look

out notice is issued against him, and is not appearing

despite the look out notice is issued, itself is an offence

.....15/-

Judgment

480 apl216.24

under Section 174(a) of the IPC punishable with

imprisonment 3 years and fine.

15. The applicant, though declared a proclaimed

offender long back, has not approached the trial court and

has not sought bail from the trial court. While exercising

powers under Section 482 of the the CrPC, it has to be

borne in mind that it should not ordinarily embark upon

an enquiry with evidence in question is reliable or not or

whether a reasonable appreciation of accusations would

not be sustained as this is to be done by the trial court.

16. Needless to say that when the accused is

absconding and not obeying the orders of the court and

did not help the prosecution in investigation, the

application under Section 482 of the CrPC requires to be

considered in the light of the above facts.

.....16/-

Judgment

480 apl216.24

17. As observed earlier, the scope of exercising of

powers under Section 482 of the CrPC has been

extensively considered in various decisions and has

emphasized and issued note of caution that the powers

should be exercised sparingly and that too in rarest of rare

cases.

18. It would not be proper for the High Court to

analyze the case of the complainant in the light of all

probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction

would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a

conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It

would be erroneous to assess the material before it and

conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. If

the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute

the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the

Magistrate, it is open to this Court to quash the same in

exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

.....17/-

Judgment

480 apl216.24

19. Considering the facts of the present case, the

applicant is absconding, has not made himself available

for investigation purpose, the look out notice is issued

against him, reply filed by the State shows that he is

staying outside India in Dubai, and he is a proclaimed

offender, we consider that the application of the applicant

deserves to be rejected.

20. In this view of the matter, the application is

rejected.

Application stands disposed of.

(NANDESH S.DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

!! BrWankhede, PS !!

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../- Date: 26/09/2025 11:02:25