[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Disha W/O Nanak Suwarani vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Tahsil Nagpur ... on 2 April, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:5234-DB
apl.528.2024.Judgment.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.528 OF 2024
Disha w/o Nanak Suwarani,
Aged about 32 Years,
Occupation : Private,
R/o. Dhawade Mohalla,
Juna Bagadganj, Nagpur. ..... APPLICANT
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Tahsil Nagpur City,
District Nagpur.
2. Mohd. Bashir Mohammad Abdul Rehman,
Aged about 43 Years,
Occupation : Flat No.3,
Infornt of Harun Gaffar House,
Swami Narayan Mandir,
Quetta Colony, Nagpur,
Tahsil District Nagpur. .... NON-APPLICANTS
-------------------------------------------
Mr. Virat Mishra, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. A. M. Kadukar, APP for non-applicant No.1/State.
Mr. Saransh Wasnik, Advocate h/f Mr. Akhilesh Potnis, Advocate for
non-applicant No.2.
-------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
RESERVED ON : 18.03.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 02.04.2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
apl.528.2024.Judgment.odt
3. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for
the applicant, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
the non-applicant No.2.
4. By this application, the applicant is seeking quashing of
the First Information Report (for short 'FIR') in connection with
Crime No.662/2023 registered with Police Station Tahsil, Nagpur
City, District Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections
420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 507 of the Indian Penal Code
and the consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing
RCC No.30065/2023 which is pending before the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Nagpur.
5. The applicant is the wife of co-accused Nanak Shyam
Suwarani. The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged
by the non-applicant No.2, on an allegation that he is doing
business and dealing with betel nuts since many years,
therefore, he got acquaintance with the co-accused Nanak
Suwarani as his father Shyam Suwarani was also running a
business regarding the betel nuts and was a member of the
association of the same business. It is alleged by the
non-applicant No.2, the co-accused Nanak used to threaten him
on various occasions that if he wants to do business in Nagpur,
he has to act as stated by him. Thereafter, he has also induced
him to give the goods on credit and against the said credit,
apl.528.2024.Judgment.odt
issued the cheque of Rs.35,00,000/- bearing No.34520. The said
cheque was deposited by the complainant which was returned
with an endorsement. It is further alleged that similarly the
co-accused Nanak obtained the goods from various persons and
issued them cheques which were subsequently dishonoured.
Thereafter, on 18.05.2023 to avoid the liability, he has handed
over all the authorities to the present applicant and got missing.
The present applicant has lodged the missing report on
20.05.2023 stating that her husband Nanak is missing. Thus, it
is alleged that only to avoid the liability of making payment, the
present applicant by joining hands with the co-accused, obtained
the rights to handle the bank accounts and co-accused shown
himself as a missing and thereby cheated various persons. It is
further alleged that the present applicant by entering into the
conspiracy with the co-accused, hatched the conspiracy to
deceive the various persons and authorized the present applicant
to handle the bank accounts. Thus, the intention since inspection
is there and thereby committed an offence.
6. After registration of the crime, the Investigating Officer
recorded the various statements of the witnesses and after
completion of the investigation, submitted a charge sheet against
the present applicants and the other co-accused.
apl.528.2024.Judgment.odt
7. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, who submitted
that merely because the applicant is the wife of the co-accused
Nanak Suwarani, she is made an accused. In fact, no specific
role is attributed to her. She has lodged the missing report as
she received a letter from her husband, which was written by
him before leaving his residence. Therefore, she lodged a
missing report. He submitted that at the most it would be a
business transaction and the liability is of civil nature. No
criminal offence is made out, in view of that the application
deserves to be allowed.
8. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said
contention and submitted that authorizing the present applicant
by the co-accused on 18.05.2023, thereafter writing a letter in
the name of the present applicant, and thereafter leaving the
residence, sufficiently shows that to avoid the liability of the
creditors. The present applicant and the other co-accused
hatched the conspiracy and in pursuance of the said conspiracy,
the co-accused got missing and to create farce that the
co-accused is missing, the present applicant has lodged the
missing report. During the investigation, it was transpired that
co-accused was liable to pay huge amount to his creditors and
issued several post dated cheques and subsequently to avoid the
liability shown himself to be missing. The present applicant has
assisted him in the said activity. Thus, common intention reveals
apl.528.2024.Judgment.odt
during the investigation, and therefore, the application deserves
to be rejected.
9. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the entire
investigation papers, it reveals that applicant as well as
non-applicant No.2 both were dealing in the same business. The
co-accused, who is the husband of the present applicant obtained
the goods from various persons and issued them cheques and
subsequently by showing himself as missing, the present
applicant has stopped the payment of the said cheques which
shows the intention of the present applicant in the alleged
offence. Thus, it reveals from various statements of the
witnesses that initially the cheques were issued against the
business transactions by the co-accused. The investigation
papers shows that the Tax Invoice Bills were issued by various
creditors in the name of the co-accused. As the co-accused was
not intending to pay the amount on 18.05.2023, he authorized
the present applicant to deal with all the bank transactions.
Thereafter, he wrote letter addressed to the present applicant
and left Nagpur. The present applicant lodged the missing report
on 20.05.2023. During the investigation, it transpired that the
co-accused was liable to pay huge amount to his creditors
towards his business transactions and had issued several post
dated cheques to them. Prior to his disappearance, the said
co-accused along with the present applicant visited the
apl.528.2024.Judgment.odt
Gandhibagh Branch of Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd., along
with one Mr. Nitin Bhojwani and informed the bank that he has
given the authority to the applicant for conducting all
transactions pertaining to the current account in the name of M/s
Kaviraj Agency, which was maintained with the said bank.
Thereafter, the present applicant started operating the bank
account from 20.05.2023 and stop the payment of various
creditors against the cheques which were issued by the co-
accused. The Investigating Officer issued a letter to the
concerned bank and obtained the copy of the communication
issued by the co-accused for obtaining account and also obtained
particulars of all cheques of which payment was stopped. It was
revealed that in all 18 entries against which the payment was
stopped since 24.05.2023. Thus, from the investigation papers,
it reveals that the applicant and the co-accused acted with a
dishonest intention to avoid liability and to defraud the creditors
and pursuance to which the co-accused got missing and the
applicant filed a missing report to create a record.
10. In the case of State of Haryana and others Vs Bhajan
Lal and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, the Apex Court
in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of
the Cr.P.C. under Chapter XIV and the principles of law initiated
by the Apex Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise
apl.528.2024.Judgment.odt
of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. laid down
the parameters which are as follows:
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code
except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview
of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of
the same do not disclose the commission of any offence
and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
apl.528.2024.Judgment.odt
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge."
11. In the said decision, the Apex Court given a note of
caution that such power of quashing a criminal proceeding should
be exercised very sparingly and make circumspection and that
too in the rarest of rare case. The said principles are followed in
several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court subsequently.
12. The question is whether the case of the applicant comes
under any of the categories enumerated in State of Haryana
and others Vs Bhajan Lal and others (referred supra). If the
allegations are taken into consideration, whether it would be
sufficient to constitute the offence against the present applicant.
On reading of a complaint, it reveals that the co-accused has
obtained the goods on credit from various creditors and issued
them post dated cheques. As he could not pay the amount, he
authorized the present applicant, who is the wife to deal with the
business transaction of the account which is in the name of
Kaviraj Agency. The authorization was given on 18.05.2023 and
thereafter, he shown himself as missing and the present
applicant has lodged the report about his missing.
apl.528.2024.Judgment.odt
13. Cheating is defined in Section 415 of the Code which
states that "Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or
dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any
property to any person, or to consent that any person shall
retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so
deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or
omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission
causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in
body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
14. Explanation.-- A dishonest concealment of facts is a
deception within the meaning of this section 420. Thus, the
section requires (1) Deception of any person. (2) Fraudulently or
dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any
person, or (3) to consent that any person shall retain any
property or intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so
deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause
damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation of
property. Thus, on a reading of the section it is manifest that in
the definition there are two separate classes are set forth of acts
which the person deceived may be induced to do. In the first
place he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver
any property to any person. The second class of acts set forth in
apl.528.2024.Judgment.odt
the section is the doing or omitting to do anything which the
person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so
deceived. In the first class of cases the inducing must be
fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing
must be intentional but not fraudulent or dishonest.
15. In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that
the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence
of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the
accused at the time to inducement which may be judged by his
subsequent conduct. Here, the subsequent conduct of the
present applicant along with the co-accused sufficient to show
that there was dishonest intention since inception to deprive
various creditors from getting the money. Thus, the culpable
intention since beginning is apparent. Hence, in view of the
above observation and as the powers to be exercised sparingly,
it is not a fit case to quash the FIR. For all above these grounds,
the application deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, the
application is rejected.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Sarkate.
Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 02/04/2026 19:40:11
