[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Shri. Vijay S/O Shankarrao Talewar vs State Of Mah., Thr. Its Secretary, Home ... on 19 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:846-DB
1/8 Judg.APL.148.2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 148 OF 2020
Vijay s/o Shankarrao Talewar
Aged about : 52 Years, Occu : Business;
R/o 157, New Ramdaspeth, Nagpur-440027. ... APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary, Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Sitabuldi, Nagpur;
Tahsil and District Nagpur.
3. Sandeep Shyamkumar Shrivastava
Aged about : 51 Years; Occu : Business;
R/o 301, Spring Leaf, 3rd Floor Plot No. 298,
12 Road, Khar (W), Mumbai - 400052. ... RESPONDENTS
Mr. P. R. Puri, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. M. J. Khan, APP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
None for the Respondent No.3.
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : JANUARY 08, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : JANUARY 19, 2026.
JUDGMENT
. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable by consent of the learned
Counsel for both sides.
2/8 Judg.APL.148.2020.odt
2. By the present Application, the Applicant is seeking to quash and
set aside the proceeding bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 5843/2025,
pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur arising out of
Crime No. 243/2016 registered with Police Station, Sitabuldi, Nagpur for the
offence punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code.
3. In short, the case of the prosecution is that, the Informant
Sandeep Shyamkumar Shrivastava, who is resident of Khar (W), Mumbai,
lodged police complaint against the present Applicant on 4/4/2016. The said
complaint being in the nature of economic offence, same was referred to the
Economic Offence Wing on 8/4/2016 for primary enquiry. After enquiry it is
revealed that the present Applicant, who by posing himself to be a reputed
building contractor of Nagpur, met with the father of Respondent No.3 Mr.
Shyamkumar Shrivastava and Chairman of 'The Deccan Minerals Pvt. Ltd.' and
put a proposal for sale of 25 acres of land owned by Kachhi Kisan Sangharsh
Samiti situated at Ramdas Peth, Nagpur. The Applicant posed himself to be a
Chief Advisor of the said Samiti.
4. It is alleged that on the submission of the Applicant they were
agreed to purchase the land, and accordingly, Agreement and Power of
Attorney was prepared in favour of the Company namely, 'M/s Nobel Quality
3/8 Judg.APL.148.2020.odt
Construction Private Limited'. It is also stated that it has been agreed to
purchase the land at the rate of Rs.4.50 Crores per acre for the total land
admeasuring 25 Acres to be paid to the Applicant by the Informant. In
pursuance of the same, Informant has time and again paid the amount through
RTGS mode and also by cheques in the name of Applicant. As such, the total
amount of Rs.5,05,89,500/- was paid by the Informant.
5. It is further alleged that after receipt of the amount from
11/12/2011 till 7/7/2012, the Applicant failed to take any steps for transfer of
land in favour of the Informant. Therefore, notices were issued to the
Applicant and request was made to execute the sale deed as agreed between
them. However, there was no response for a considerable period on the part of
Applicant. Therefore, as a last resort, the complaint was lodged against the
Applicant on 7/6/2016. On receipt of the complaint, an offence came to be
registered against the Applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 406,
409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code with Police Station, Sitabuldi, Nagpur vide
Crime No. 243/2016.
6. The said First Information Report, which is registered against the
Applicant, is challenged by the present Applicant by way of present Application
on the ground that in the year 2011 out of good terms, relationship between
4/8 Judg.APL.148.2020.odt
the Applicant and father of the Informant namely, Shyamkumar Shrivastava
allocated the work of transfer of mining lease of the Lime Stone Mine, situated
at Mouza Chedwai, District Chandrapur regarding 293.12 hectare belonging to
M/s New India Mining Corporation in the name of Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd.
Nagpur. The said deal was fixed to the tune of Rs.32.00 Crores in regard to the
transfer of mining lease in the name of Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd., and it was
decided that out of the said amount of Rs.32.00 Crores, Rs. 7.00 Crores would
be the commission of Applicant. Accordingly, the Respondent No.3 and his
father paid an amount of Rs.4.00 Crores by RTGS and Rs.1.00 Crore by cheque
to the Applicant towards part payment of the commission in the said deal.
However, the Respondent No.3 failed to make payment of the remaining
amount of Rs.2.00 Crores to the Applicant, and therefore, the Applicant waited
in the matter of balance payment for quite considerable time.
7. In the year 2014 father of the Respondent No.3 was facing
medical issue and was under treatment of doctors for considerable period,
therefore, the Applicant was again required to wait for payment of balance
amount of Rs.2.00 Crores pending with the Respondent No.3. In this
background to avoid the balance amount, Respondent No.3 started harassing
the Applicant and lodged a false complaint with Crime Branch, Nagpur.
5/8 Judg.APL.148.2020.odt
According to the Applicant, there was no such deal as alleged in the complaint
nor subject matter was even discussed between the Applicant and father of
Respondent No.3 or Shri Shyam Kumar Shrivastava. Hence, according to the
Applicant, complaint lodged in the matter is nothing but abuse of process of
law, and therefore, same is required to be quashed and set aside.
8. During the pendency of the present Application, investigation is
completed and chargesheet is filed. The learned APP pointed out that stand
taken by the present Applicant is totally irrelevant. The learned APP pointed
out the communication dated 1/11/2012 issued by the Informant/Company to
the Applicant. The perusal of same made it clear that there was a transaction
regarding 25 Acres of land at Ramdaspeth, Nagpur with the Applicant and
request was made to Applicant to return back Rs.5.00 Crores sent to him
through the bank. It is also stated in the communication that one news has
been published in the Newspaper, whereby the Committee has stated that they
were not received any payment and the entire amount was received by the
Applicant only.
9. It is also clear from the chargesheet that the Society namely,
'Kacchhi Kisan Sangharsha Samiti, Nagpur has not been registered with the
office of Charity Commissioner. As such, it is clear that in absence of such
6/8 Judg.APL.148.2020.odt
registration, the letter pad are prepared and Applicant posed himself as a Chief
Co-ordinator of the Committee. In the light of these documents placed on
record, it is clearly established that there is a prima facie case against the
present Applicant in the matter.
10. The Applicant has also raised one of the issue of delay in lodging
police complaint against him and filing of chargesheet in the year 2025, when
the offence is registered in the year 2011-12. In this regard, the learned APP
stated that during the course of trial the Informant can very well explain the
delay caused on his part to lodge police complaint. In regard to the filing of
chargesheet, it is the submission of the learned APP that after registration of
the FIR on 7/6/2016, the investigation was started. The Applicant, after four
years of registration of complaint, approached before this Court to challenge
the lodging of FIR in the year 2020. This Court, by order dated 14/2/2020,
while granting interim stay directed the Investigating agency not to file
chargesheet till final disposal of the Application. Accordingly, the chargesheet
was not filed immediately in the matter. It is further pointed out that during
the pendency of the present Application, permission was sought to file the
chargesheet and thereafter the same was filed. In view thereof, according to
7/8 Judg.APL.148.2020.odt
the learned APP, the investigating agency cannot be blamed for not filing the
chargesheet within a reasonable period in the matter.
11. It is also pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
has time and again held that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceeding,
has to be fully satisfied that the material produced or relied on by the accused
leads to the conclusion that his defence is based on sound, reasonable and
indubitable facts. So also this Court is not supposed to evaluate the
truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled by the
prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for
determination how weighty the defence raised on behalf of the accused. As per
the settled principles of law, even if the Accused is successful in showing some
suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant,
it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so
because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the
prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant
to adduce evidence to substantiate the same.
12. In the light of abovesaid factual position of the matter and the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in my opinion, the material
8/8 Judg.APL.148.2020.odt
which is placed on record after investigation do not prima facie seen that the
allegations levelled against the Applicant are false in nature or with an oblique
motive or intention. The documents, which I have referred above, also satisfy
the fact that there is some force in the allegations made by the Complainant in
the matter. Therefore, it will be proper that in the present case trial should be
conducted to find out the truthfulness in the matter.
13. Therefore, in my view, it is not a fit case to exercise the powers
under Section 482 of the Code to quash and set aside the entire prosecution
against the present Applicant. Hence, for the reasons stated above, Criminal
Application stands rejected.
14. Since the Criminal Application is rejected, pending Criminal
Application No. 2675/2025 does not survive. The same stands disposed of
accordingly.
[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.]
vijaya
Signed by: Mrs. V.G. Yadav
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 20/01/2026 11:50:34
