[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Shriram Bhikaji Khanolkar vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:17366
Supriya WP-4093-2023.doc
S
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4093 OF 2023
1. Shriram Bhikaji Khanolkar
Age : 63 years, Occupation : Self Employed,
R/at: D/4, Mandvi, Devidas Lane,
Borivali West, Mumbai 400092.
2. Dwarka Komal Yadav
Age : 43 years, Occupation : Service,
R/at: Room No.6, Ram Chawl
Near Mandir Poman, Vasai, Palghar
... Petitioners
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Dahisar Police Station.
... Respondent
______________________
Mr. Sachindra Shetye a/w Ms. Dhanashri Mondkar, Ms. Vrushali Shivgan i/b
Mr. Akshay Pansare for the Petitioners.
Mr. Amit A. Palkar, A.P.P. for Respondent -State.
______________________
CORAM : RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.
RESERVED ON : 18th FEBRUARY 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 10th APRIL 2026.
JUDGMENT :
-
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the
consent of the parties.
2) By the present Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioners
Supriya WP-4093-2023.doc
seeks to quash and set aside Police Case No. W/2601132/2012 pending on the
file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 26 th Court, Borivali, Mumbai arising
out of the F.I.R. dated 7 th April 2011 bearing C.R. No. 102 of 2011 and also
the order of framing of charge dated 8 th July 2024 passed by learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th Court, at Borivali, Mumbai in C.C. No.
1132/PW/2012.
3) Heard Mr. Sachindra Shetye for the Petitioners, Mr. Amit A.
Palkar, A.P.P for Respondent -State. Perused the record.
4) In the present case, the F.I.R. dated 7th April 2011 has been
registered with the Dahisar Police Station under Section 420 read with 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Clause 3 and 4 of Lubricating Oils and
Greases (Processing, Supply and Distribution Regulation) Order, 1987 read
with Section 3, 7(2) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
5) It is the contention of the prosecution in the FIR that, when the
Investigating Officer alongwith other Officers visited the godown of the
Petitioner No.1, it was allegedly noticed that, the workers in the godown were
in process of mixing some adulterated chemical substance in the oil with the
help of a rod. It is further alleged that, the said adulterated oil was transferred
to other drums and the workers were affixing seals of reputed companies on
the said drum.
6) On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed
being Police Case No. W/2601132/2012 before the learned Metropolitan
Supriya WP-4093-2023.doc
Magistrate, 26th Court, Borivali.
7) Mr. Sachindra Shetye, learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits
that ;
(i) The Petitioner No.1 is the proprietor of M/s. Kentee Oils Pvt. Ltd
and carrying out his business of trading in Lubricating Oils. The Petitioner has
been granted license under the Shop and Establishment Act. The Petitioner
possessed a license under section 394 of Mumbai Municipal Act, 1988. That,
at the time of raid/lodging of the F.I.R., Petitioner was holding a license to
carry on the business of processor under the provisions of the Lubricating Oils
and Greases (Processing Supply and Distribution Regulation) Order, 1987.
(ii) The F.I.R. against the petitioner is totally misconceived and
misplaced. The Petitioners have been charge-sheeted for having committed
offences punishable under section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code, Clause 3 and 4 of Lubricating Oils and Greases (Processing, Supply and
Distribution Regulation) Order, 1987 read with Section 3, 7(2) of Essential
Commodities Act, 1955. That, the Petitioner being issued a valid license and
being a processor as defined under clause 2(c) of the provisions of the
Lubricating Oils and Greases (Processing, Supply and Distribution Regulation)
Order 1987 is permitted to carry on the business of manufacturing, blending,
packaging, re-refining, sale or resale of any lubricating oil or grease and
includes a representative or agent of such processor but does not include the
oil companies specified in Schedule I appended to the Order. Clause 2(d) of
Supriya WP-4093-2023.doc
the Lubricating Oils and Greases Order, states that without prejudice to the
meaning assigned to "adulteration" under the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954, any lubricating oil or grease shall be deemed to be adulterated if
the same does not meet the specifications declared by or applicable to the
processor.
8) Learned Advocate for the Petitioners further submits that, the
Petitioner was carrying out his business as a processor in accordance with law
and that being a processor, the activities which are allegedly found to be
objectionable by the Investigating Officer are in fact within the four corners of
the law. He submits that, the chemical analyzer report dated 30 th January
2012 has been received and the relevant portion whereas read as under:-
"--Exhibit Nos 1 to 6 contain lubricating oil.
--Exhibit Nos. 7 and 8 contains grease."
9) He submits that, once the chemical analyzer report is accepted
the present prosecution cannot be proceeded with.
10) I have perused the copy of the statement dated 7 th April 2011
wherein it is alleged that, the Petitioner and his co-workers, after mixing some
substance in the oil, were refiling the oil in drums and putting labels of known
companies as such HP, Indian Oil, Bharat Petroleum.
11) Perusal of the definition of 'processor' as defined under clause
2(c) of the Lubricating Oils and Greases Order, 1987 would indicate that, the
activity as contended by the prosecution in the F.I.R. is nothing but an activity
Supriya WP-4093-2023.doc
which is carried out by a processor, which includes the activity of carrying on
business of manufacturing, blending, packaging, re-refining, sale or resale of
any lubricating oil or grease. The definition further provides that, a
representative or agent of such processor except the oil companies specified in
Schedule I of the said order are included as processor.
12) Even if the allegations in the FIR are accepted in their entirety it
would only mean that, the Petitioners were carrying out a valid business
activity. The Petitioner also hold a valid license for the said business. Most
pertinently, a perusal of the examination report dated 30 th January 2012
issued by the Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratories, Santacruz, Mumbai
would indicate that, the liquid and solid substance which was taken for testing
from the Petitioner's godown has now been confirmed to be lubricating oil
and grease. A finding has been rendered that, there is no adulteration nor is
any objectionable chemical substance found in the said samples. Considering
the Chemical Analyzer's Report, it cannot be said that the Petitioners were
indulging in any wrong doing, much less any offences as alleged for which the
Petitioners have been charge-sheeted. Even a perusal of the FIR would
indicate that, the basic ingredients required to make out an offence of
cheating are absent in the FIR. The basic ingredients for an offence of
cheating are deception, fraudulent or dishonest inducement at the inception
to deliver property or to consent to retain some property. To hold a person
guilty of committing an offence of cheating or to sustain an allegation of
Supriya WP-4093-2023.doc
cheating, it would be necessary for the Complainant/First Informant to prima
facie show that, the accused had a fraudulent and/or dishonest intention since
the inception and at the time of making the promise. In other words, to make
out an offence of cheating it is necessary that the dishonest intention is from
the inception of the transaction. The person so deceived should be induced to
either deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall
retain any property or intentionally induce that person to do or omit to do
anything which that person would not do or omit if he was not so deceived.
The said act of cheating or omission should cause or should be likely to cause
damage or harm to that person or the person's mind, reputation or property.
None of the aforesaid ingredients are even alleged in the complaint/FIR.
13) In the present case the allegation is only of mixing some
substance in the oil and refiling the oil in drums and putting labels of known
companies such as Hindustan Petroleum, Indian Oil or Bharat Petroleum etc.,
on the said drums. On the basis of said allegations, one cannot make out an
offence of cheating. More pertinently, the examination report dated 30 th
January 2012 issued by the Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratories,
clearly indicates that the article i.e. Exh. 1 to 6 contained Lubricating Oil and
article i.e. Exh. 7 and 8 contained Greece. There is no report of adulteration or
any report indicating that any foreign substance is found in the Greece or Oil.
14) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the
opinion that, the allegations as contained in the FIR do not make out any
Supriya WP-4093-2023.doc
prima facie case for an offence of cheating.
15) Considering the facts of the present case, it is a fit and proper
case to exercise the power vested in this court under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal procedure to quash the present criminal prosecution in the
interest of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of law.
16) In view thereof, I am of the opinion that the Police Case No.
W/2601132/2012 pending on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate 26 th
Court, Borivali, Mumbai arising out of the F.I.R. dated 7 th April 2011 bearing
C.R. No. 102 of 2011 and also the order of framing of charge dated 8 th July
2024 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 26 th Court, at Borivali,
Mumbai in C.C. No. 1132/PW/2012 ought to be quashed and set aside.
17) In view thereof, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause
(a) and (bb).
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.)
