[Cites 22, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Nitin S/O Vinod Harne vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Ajni Nagpur Tq. ... on 10 February, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:2239-DB
25.apl.1214.2021 and 1282.2021.Judgment.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1214 OF 2021
1. Nitin s/o Vinod Harne,
Aged 43 Years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. Flat No.202,
Jogeshwari Dham Apartment,
Giripeth, Nagpur - 440010. ..... APPLICANT
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra through
Police Station Officer,
Police Station Ajni, Nagpur,
Taluka and District Nagpur.
2. Anil s/o Ramnarayan Tiwari,
Aged 56 Yars,
R/o. Plot No.36-A,
Jay Gurudeo Nagar,
Police Station, Ajni, Nagpur,
Taluka and District Nagpur. ....NON-APPLICANTS
-------------------------------------------
Mr. Rohan Deo, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Nikhil Joshi, APP for the non-applicant No.1/State.
Mr. N. D. Khamborkar, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.
------------------------------------------
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1282 OF 2021
1. Abhijit s/o Dilip Deshmukh,
Aged about 42 Years,
Occupation : Private Service,
R/o. Plot No.40, Vishwas Society,
Manish Nagar, Nagpur.
2. Vinodkumar s/o Vishambharnath Sharma,
Aged about 45 Years,
Occupation : Private Service,
R/o. Plot No.83, Shriram Nagar,
25.apl.1214.2021 and 1282.2021.Judgment.odt
(2)
Uday Nagar Chowk, Nagpur. ..... APPLICANTS
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra through
Police Station Officer,
Police Station Ajni, Nagpur,
Taluka and District Nagpur.
2. Anil s/o Ramnarayan Tiwari,
Aged 56 Yars,
R/o. Plot No.36-A,
Jay Gurudeo Nagar,
Police Station, Ajni, Nagpur,
Taluka and District Nagpur. ....NON-APPLICANTS
-------------------------------------------
Mr. Anshuman Sambre, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. Nikhil Joshi, APP for the non-applicant No.1/State.
Mr. N. D. Khamborkar, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.
-------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
RESERVED ON : 28.01.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 10.02.2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
4. Both applications are preferred by the applicants therein
for quashing of the First Information Report (for short 'FIR') in
connection with Crime No.338/2021 registered with Police Station,
Ajni, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409,
420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and
25.apl.1214.2021 and 1282.2021.Judgment.odt
consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing
RCC No.5881/2025 pending before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Nagpur.
5. The applicant in Criminal Application (APL)
No.1214/2021 namely Nitin Harne had joined services at Deewan
Housing Finance Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred as
'DHFL') at Nagpur, as Marketing Officer in insurance services on
15.07.2002. He was transferred in Home Loan Department of DHFL.
The applicant was transferred at Ahmednagar as Branch Manager
on 16.06.2005. On 20.10.2005, he resigned from DHFL. Again on
20.12.2011 he joined the services at DHFL as a Deputy Manager at
Branch Dhantoli, Nagpur and served in DHFL till 31.12.2012 and
thereafter, resigned from his job.
6. The applicant No.1 in Criminal Application (APL)
No.1282/2021, joined services at DHFL as Assistance Manager
Recovery on 21.01.2008 and worked in the said department till
22.02.2013. At the time of leaving the job, he was working as
Deputy Manager of Recovery, whereas applicant No.2 had worked
at DHFL, Nagpur as a Branch Manager. The applicant No.2 served
in DHFL from 04.07.2006 to 26.10.2007.
7. The non-applicant No.2 complainant had approached
the DHFL for availing financial assistance for purchase of immovable
property. On verification of his loan proposal, DHFL had sanctioned
25.apl.1214.2021 and 1282.2021.Judgment.odt
loan of Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of the non-applicant No.2.
Accordingly, the agreement was executed between DHFL and
non-applicant No.2 on 24.10.2002. As per the agreement, the
non-applicant No.2 has to repay the loan amount by way of monthly
installment of Rs.3,282/- upto 31.03.2018. As the non-applicant
No.2 has committed default in payment of monthly installment and
issued a cheque of Rs.32,154/- in favour of DHFL dated 14.09.2006
vide cheque bearing No.116755. The said cheque was presented
for encashment but the same was dishonoured for the reason 'funds
insufficient.' Due to the dishonour of the cheque, the DHFL has
taken recourse under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 by presenting complaint under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as 'N.I. Act')
bearing SCC No.20821/2006. Subsequently, the said complaint
came to be dismissed.
8. As the non-applicant No.2 failed to pay the monthly
installment as agreed towards the loan amount, the said loan
account was classified as NPA by DHFL and consequently the
recourse of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred
as 'SARFAESI') was taken by the DHFL by issuing the notice under
Section 13(2) of the said Act of 2002. The DHFL has filed an
application under Section 14 of the said Act bearing Miscellaneous
25.apl.1214.2021 and 1282.2021.Judgment.odt
Application No.52/2010. On 22.03.2012, learned District Magistrate,
Nagpur by its order allowed the application under Section 14 and
thereby permitted the DHFL to take physical possession of the
secured assets (immovable property). On 23.05.2012, the DHFL
had taken possession of the secured assets (immovable property).
On 28.05.2013, the property was auctioned and the DHFL has
executed sale deed in favour of the auction purchaser namely Ajay
Shankar Ramteke for valuable consideration of Rs.7,60,000/-. In
the meantime, on 16.05.2011, the non-applicant No.2 had filed a
complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1980
against the DHFL before the learned District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Nagpur. The said complaint was registered as
Complaint No.270/2011. On 21.01.2014 the non-applicant No.2
also filed proceeding before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal,
Nagpur, challenging the order dated 22.03.2012 passed by the
learned District Magistrate, Nagpur in Miscellaneous Application
No.52/2010. The Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal,
Nagpur has rejected the application of the Non-applicant No.2 which
was filed for condonation of delay on 28.12.2015. On 16.07.2021,
the non-applicant No.2 approached to the Ajni Police Station and
lodged a report against the present applicants and other co-accused
alleging misappropriation of the amount which he has paid towards
the loan installment, preparation of the forged document and using
the same as genuine one. As per the allegations, after
25.apl.1214.2021 and 1282.2021.Judgment.odt
disbursement of the loan, he agreed to repay the loan in monthly
installments of Rs.3,282/-. The loan was sanctioned to him by the
DHFL on 24.10.2002. As per his allegations, at the time of
sanctioning of the loan 16 blank cheques were obtained from him by
DHFL as well as policy in his name and policies in the name of his
daughters are also given by way of security to the DHFL. He further
alleged that the company has withdrawn an amount of Rs.3,500/-
by using cheque bearing No.116745. However, the said amount
was not shown to be deposited in his loan account. He further
alleged that on 06.08.2004 the applicant Nitin Harne obtained from
him an amount of Rs.20,000/- and cheque of Rupee bank bearing
No.128037. However, the amount of Rs.20,000/- was not shown to
be deposited in his loan account. Thus, the sum and substance of
his allegation is that though he paid the amount of Rs.33,300/-, but
in the account statement it was shown that towards the repayment
of loan he has paid Rs.13,300/-. Likewise, he has paid Rs.40,000/-
on 29.11.2004 vide receipt No.18488 but same was shown to be
paid as Rs.4,000/-. Similarly, an amount of Rs.30,600/- was paid
by him on 08.08.2006 which was also not shown in the loan
amount. With these allegations, the present applicants are
arraigned as an accused in the Crime No.338/2021.
9. After registration of the crime, the statements of the
relevant witnesses are recorded, account statements of the loan
25.apl.1214.2021 and 1282.2021.Judgment.odt
account of the complainant were also collected and after completion
of the investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against the
present applicants.
10. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Rohan Deo in Criminal
Application (APL) No.1214/2021. He submitted that with the false
and baseless allegations, the present applicant Nitin Harne was
implicated in the alleged offence. He submitted that the applicant is
an employee of Deewan Housing Finance for the period 15.07.2002
to 20.10.2005. The non-applicant No.2 has obtained loan from
DHFL and as he failed to repay the loan as agreed, the SARFAESI
proceeding was initiated against him. In view of the order passed
by the learned District Magistrate on 22.03.2012 possession of the
immovable property of the non-applicant No.2 was taken on
23.05.2012. The non-applicant No.2 though filed various
proceedings, but not succeed in the proceedings and therefore, this
false complaint came to be lodged approximately after six years
after the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal rejected his
application for condonation of delay. He submitted that as far as
the allegation levelled against the present applicant that he
obtained the money from the wife of the complainant and not
deposited the same is not substantiated by any material. On the
basis of the omnibus allegation, he arraigned as an accused. He
further submitted that the pleading raised in the consumer
25.apl.1214.2021 and 1282.2021.Judgment.odt
complaint and the allegation levelled in the FIR are contrary to each
other. After exhausting the remedies, this report came to be
lodged. In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed.
11. Learned counsel Mr. Anshuman Sambre in Criminal
Application (APL) No.1282/2021 submitted that on perusal of the
recitals of the FIR and entire investigation papers, except the
allegation against the applicant No.1 that when he had been to take
the possession of the immovable property of the non-applicant
No.2, he has outraged the modesty by holding the hand of daughter
of the complainant and removed her from the house, there is
absolutely no allegation regarding misappropriation or preparing the
forged documents or cheating on his part. As far as the applicant
No.2 is concerned, none of the statements discloses any specific act
or any overt act on his part or his involvement in the alleged
offence. He submitted that the recitals of the FIR, the statements
of the witnesses, nowhere discloses any role to the present
applicants. Thus, on the basis of omnibus, general and vague
statement, the applicants are arraigned as an accused. He
submitted that as far as the allegation that the applicant No.1 has
outraged the modesty of the daughter of the non-applicant No.2
regarding the said incident, the separate crime is already
registered. He submitted that even accepting the allegation as it is,
at the face value that the applicant No.1 has hold the hands of the
25.apl.1214.2021 and 1282.2021.Judgment.odt
daughter of the complainant and dragged her out of the house by
no stretch of imagination it can be said that it was with a sexual
intent and thereby he committed an offence outraging of modesty.
Except that allegation, nothing incriminating is revealed during the
investigation and therefore, in absence of any prima facie case, the
application deserves to be allowed. He placed reliance on K.
Virupaksha and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another,
(2020) 4 SCC 440.
12. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said
contention and submitted that the recitals of the FIR, statement of
the informant, statement of the wife of the complainant, extract of
the statement accounts and the communication issued by the
co-accused Nitin Harne discloses the prima facie material against
the present applicants. In view of the parameters laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others
Vs Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335,
the prima facie case is made out against the present applicants, and
therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.
13. Learned counsel Mr. N. D. Khamborkar for the
complainant/non-applicant No.2 endorsed the same contention and
invited my attention towards the statement of the accounts as well
as the communication issued by the other applicants in Criminal
Application (APL) No.1214/2021. On the basis of the material, he
25.apl.1214.2021 and 1282.2021.Judgment.odt
submitted that there is sufficient material to proceed against the
present applicants, and therefore, the application deserves to be
rejected.
14. The law is settled as far as the quashing of the FIR is
concerned. In the case of State of State of Haryana and others
Vs Bhajan Lal and others referred supra, the parameters for
quashing of the FIR are laid down which are reproduced as under:
"(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
25.apl.1214.2021 and 1282.2021.Judgment.odt
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.
(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."
15. Thus, the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised
with great caution. The mini trial at this stage is not permissible.
The only requirement is to examine whether the uncontroverted
allegations as contained in the FIR at their face value disclosed the
commission of any cognizable offence. Thus, the principle of law
initiated by the Apex Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India or the inherent power under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, the present case requires to be
examined. On perusal of the FIR, it reveals that the present
applicants are the employees of DHFL, serving at a higher positions.
Undisputedly, the non-applicant No.2 has approached to the DHFL
for financial assistance. Accordingly, the financial assistance was
25.apl.1214.2021 and 1282.2021.Judgment.odt
given to the non-applicant No.2 by sanctioning the loan on
03.10.2002. As per the agreement between the DHFL and the
non-applicant No.2, he agreed to repay the loan in monthly
installment. There is no dispute that the non-applicant No.2 failed
to pay the loan amount and therefore, the DHFL deposited cheque
bearing No.116755 of Rs.32,154/-, which was issued against the
outstanding amount, but the cheque was returned with
endorsement 'funds insufficient' and therefore, the proceeding
under Section 138 of N.I. Act was initiated against the
non-applicant No.2. Undisputedly, on 29.06.2009 the said
complaint registered as SCC No.20821/2006 and dismissed for want
of prosecution. Subsequently, the loan account of the non-applicant
No.2 was classified as NPA due to the failure of the non-applicant
No.2 to pay the monthly installment and thereby the recourse under
the SARFAESI Act was taken. In view of the order passed by the
District Magistrate dated 22.03.2012 permitting to DHFL to take
physical possession, the DHFL has taken possession of the secured
assets on 23.05.2012. The said property was auctioned on
28.05.2013 and the DHFL has executed a sale deed in favour of the
auction purchaser namely Ajay Shankar Ramteke by accepting the
consideration amount of Rs.7,60,000/-. Thereafter, the non-
applicant No.2 has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act before the learned District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur. The non-applicant No.2 had
25.apl.1214.2021 and 1282.2021.Judgment.odt
also filed a complaint before the DHFL, but the same was dismissed
and thereafter, the present FIR came to be lodged after six years.
16. On perusal of the entire investigation papers, as far as
the allegation against the applicant Nitin Harne in Criminal
Application (APL) No.1214/2021 is concerned, which specifically
stated by the informant as well as in the statement of the wife of
the informant. This aspect is further substantiated by the
statement of the accounts and various receipts filed on record which
shows that the despite receipts were issued regarding the payment
to the non-applicant No.2, but the said amounts were not shown in
the loan account of the non-applicant No.2. As per the allegations,
the applicant Nitin Harne has obtained the amount on 06.08.2004
from the wife of the non-applicant No.2, but the said amount was
also not shown in the loan account of the present non-applicant
No.2. This fact is further substantiated by the letter issued by the
applicant Nitin Harne wherein he specifically admitted that due to
the technical reasons, the said amount was not shown in the
account statements. The subsequent letter issued by the Branch
Manager DHFL, Bhivapur Branch, Dhantoli also discloses that the
employees of the DHFL have scored in some receipts and added
some amounts and inquiry was held against them and they were
removed from the services. Thus, as far as the applicant Nitin
Harne is concerned, against whom the allegation is substantiated by
25.apl.1214.2021 and 1282.2021.Judgment.odt
the documents also.Thus, there is a prima facie material against the
applicant Nitin Harne. As far as the delay is concerned, admittedly
he lodged the complaint in the year 2021. But considering the fact
that initially, he approached to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT),
but he could not get the relief and therefore, lastly, he has taken
the assistance of lodging of the FIR. Merely because there is a
delay in lodging the FIR and considering the serious allegations
against the present applicant would not be sufficient to quash the
FIR against the applicant Nitin Harne against whom the specific
allegations are levelled by the non-applicant No.2 and the same are
substantiated by the documentary evidence. His involvement in the
present crime reveals from the investigation papers.
17. As far as the applicants in Criminal Application (APL)
No.1282/2021 are concerned, admittedly, there is no allegation
against them that they have either obtained the money from the
non-applicant No.2 or any family members and not deposited the
same. As far as the applicant No.2 in the said application namely
Vinodkumar Sharma is concerned, absolutely there is no reference
of his name either in the statement of the informant or his wife or
any other statements. The documentary evidence also nowhere
shows his involvement in the alleged offence. As far as the
applicant No.1 Abhijit Deshmukh is concerned, only one incident is
noted against him that on 23.05.2012. He along with the other
25.apl.1214.2021 and 1282.2021.Judgment.odt
officials had been to the house of the non-applicant No.2 for taking
possession of the immovable property and at that time, he allegedly
outraged the modesty of the daughter of the non-applicant No.2 by
holding her hand and dragged her out of the house. Regarding the
said incident, the separate FIR is already lodged vide Crime
No.32/2015. Except that allegations as far as the present crime is
concerned, there is no allegation that either he has created a forged
documents or obtained the money from the non-applicant No.2 and
not deposited the same in the loan account of the non-applicant
No.2.
18. The basic requirement to bring home the accusation
under Section 467 of IPC is that there has to be (i) commission of
forgery; (ii) that such commission of forgery must be in relation to a
document purporting to be (a) a valuable property; or (b) a will; or
(c) an authority to adopt a son; or (d) which purports to give
authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security;
or (e) the receive the principle, interest or dividends thereon; or (f)
to receive or deliver any money, movable property or valuable
security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or
receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or (g) an acquittance
or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable
security. The offence under Section 467 is an aggravated form of
the offence under Section 466, IPC.
25.apl.1214.2021 and 1282.2021.Judgment.odt
19. To constitute the offence punishable under 468 of IPC
the requirement is (i) Commission of forgery, (ii) that he did so
intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be
used for the purpose of cheating.
20. The ingredients of offence of cheating described in
Section 415 is 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"." To hold a person guilty of cheating as
defined under Section 415 of the IPC, it is necessary to show that
he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the
promise with an intention to retain the property. In other words,
Section 415 of the IPC which defines cheating, requires deception of
any person.
21. In the light of the above definition, admittedly, as far as
the applicant in Criminal Application (APL) No.1214/2021 is
concerned, the allegation is substantiated by the material which is
collected during the investigation sufficiently shows the involvement
of the present applicant, at this stage, the dishonest intention of
25.apl.1214.2021 and 1282.2021.Judgment.odt
said applicant Nitin Harne can be inferred. As far as the other
applicants are concerned, apparently there is no material to connect
them with the alleged offence, in absence of the prima facie
material showing their involvement either creating a forged
documents or accepting the money and not depositing the same.
After applying parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of State of Haryana and others Vs Bhajan Lal and
others referred supra if the facts of the present case are considered
and the evidence collected during the investigation, admittedly,
offence is made out against the applicant Nitin Harne, but the
offence is not made out against the applicants Abhijit Deshmukh
and Vinodkumar Sharma. In view of that, the Criminal Application
(APL) No.1214/2021 deserves to be rejected, whereas the Criminal
Application (APL) No.1282/2021 deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Application (APL) No.1214/2021 is
hereby rejected.
(ii) The Criminal Application (APL) No.1282/2021 is
allowed.
(iii) The FIR in connection with Crime No.338/2021
registered with Police Station Ajni, Nagpur, District Nagpur
for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420,
465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and
the consequent proceeding arising out of the same RCC
No.5881/2025 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
25.apl.1214.2021 and 1282.2021.Judgment.odt
Nagpur, are quashed and set aside against the applicants
Abhijit s/o Dilip Deshmukh and Vinodkumar s/o
Vishambharnath Sharma.
Both the applications are disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Sarkate.
Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/02/2026 20:20:23
