[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Dr. Utpal S/O Uttam Bandhekar vs State Of Mha. Thr. Ps Dhantoli Nagpur And ... on 23 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:4731-DB
37 apl 1363.22.odt..odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1363 OF 2022
1. Dr. Utpal s/o Uttam Bandhekar
Aged about 33 years, APPLICANT
Occupation : Doctor,
R/o Zenda Chowk, Chitnavispura,
Sakkardara Road, Opp. Guru Puja
Enclave, Mahal, Nagpur
// V E R S U S //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station NON-APPLICANTS
Dhantoli, Nagpur
2. Dr. Nilesh Pund,
Aged about 35 years,
Occupation : BAMS, MD,
R/o (a) Sahyadri, Plot No.5,
Bhagyanagar Juna- Jalna
(b) New Roots Hair Clinic,
2nd Floor, A-Wing, Badwaik
Complex, Opp. Lokmat Building,
Dhantoli, Nagpur
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. Viditel, Advocate alongwith Mr. N.R. Kanungo, Advocate
for the applicant.
Mr. N.B. Jawade, APP for non-applicant No.1/State.
Mr. Abhishek Patil, Advocate a/w Mr. Omkar Shendkar, Advocate
for non-applicant No.2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:-11/03/2026
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON:- 23/03/2026
37 apl 1363.22.odt..odt
2
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal with the consent
of learned counsel for the parties.
3. The present application is preferred by the applicant
by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 for
quashing of the First Information Report in connection with crime
No.200/2022 registered with the non-applicant No.1-Police
Station Dhantoli under Sections 408, 420 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and under Section 66 of Information
Technology Act, 2000 and consequent proceeding arising out of
the same bearing charge-sheet No.15/2023.
4. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the
application are as under:-
The applicant is medical professional. The
complainant Dr. Nilesh Pund lodged the report alleging that he is
running his hospital by name " New Roots Hair Transplant Clinic".
He has employed two persons including Dr. Ravi Khare and
37 apl 1363.22.odt..odt
Akansha Bondare, Anjali Tayade as well as other employees in his
clinic. The complainant himself is Trichologist. He further
alleged that the patient who visits his clinic has to first approach
to the reception counter and at the reception counter the
information about patient regarding their name, address is taken
then receptionist forward the said patient to the Manager. The job
of the Manager is to counsel the patient and thereafter manager
send the patient to the doctor for treatment and after examination
of the patient the payment is required to be paid at the reception
centre. At the end of the day receptionist used to take entries of
amount in the register and computer daily and then all the entries
after tallied are sent to the complainant on his WhatsApp. In the
month of August, 2021 one employee namely Mayuri Modak was
employed and she was assigned the duty of Telly Callery/
Receptionist. She used to take all information of the patient and
used to feed the data in the Laptop and was also assigning the
duty to collect fees from the patient after treatment and
communicate with the patients about the clinic and their
treatment.
37 apl 1363.22.odt..odt
5. In the month April, 2022 it was noted by the
complainant that said Mayuri Modak was not doing her job
properly and was also not maintaining the account properly
regarding receipt of payment in the register. When the patients
were approaching to the reception counter she was not giving
proper information to the patient and was also not depositing the
amount in the account of the hospital and was keeping money
with herself. On verification pertaining to the record maintained
by Mayuri, it was noticed that from 14.02.2022 to 09.04.2022 the
names of patients namely Abhishekh Pande, Kshitij Bankar and
Ketan Rahadve were registered but subsequently entries were
scratched and their fees amount of Rs.4900/- was taken by her for
herself. It further revealed during inquiry that she has diverted
the patient of the complainant hospital to some other hospital.
Thereafter the inquiry was made with her and she disclosed that
she has forwarded detail information of various patients from
computer data to one Dr. Utpal Bandhekar i.e. present applicant
and Kunal Ranade through e-mail and WhatsApp. Therefore, the
complainant constrained to approach police station and lodged
the FIR.
37 apl 1363.22.odt..odt
6. On the basis of the said information report the
investigating agency has investigated the matter and after
completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted
against the present applicant.
7. Heard learned counsel for the applicant who
submitted that applicant is also a medical profession i.e. MBBS
Doctor and registered with Maharashtra Medical Council, Mumbai
whereas, the non-applicant No.2 holds a degree in Ayurved i.e.
Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery and is enrolled as a
Associate Professor with Dr. Rajendra Gode Ayurved College and
Hospital and Research Centre, Amravati run by the Indira
Bahuuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Buldhana Road, Malkapur
District Buldhana, under the supervision of Maharashtra
University of Health Sciences, Nashik.
8. The applicant has specialized his medical practice in
the field of Hair Restoration and has been enrolled as a 'Member'
by the Indian Society of Hair Restoration with Registration
No.1132 w.e.f. 08.09.2022. It is submitted that non-applicant No.2
is not eligible to practice as a Trichologist on the basis of
37 apl 1363.22.odt..odt
qualification held by him and is not permitted to practice also
under the provisions of Maharashtra University of Health Services
Act, 1998 and Government Resolution dated 07.08.2012. Despite
of that non-applicant No.2 has started his clinic at Aurangabad,
Nashik, Mumbai and Nagpur and is abusing the process of Court
by filing complaint against the applicant who is specialized person
in the Trichologist. It is further submitted that even accepting the
allegation is as it is on its face value at the most it would be
professional misconduct and not an offence punishable under
Section 408 i.e. criminal beach of trust by clerk or servant. Section
408 would be applicable against co-accused and not against the
present applicant. As far as offence of cheating is concerned,
which requires the intention since inception which is absent in the
present case and therefore, no prima-facie case is made out
against present applicant. In view of that, application deserves to
be allowed.
9. On the contrary learned APP vehemently submitted
that the intention since inception is apparent from the
communication by the present applicant with the employee of the
non-applicant No.2. The WhatsApp chat itself shows that present
37 apl 1363.22.odt..odt
applicant has abetted the co accused to share the data of the
patients through WhatsApp chat. Accordingly, co accused Mayuri
has shared data by which applicant has received the monetary
gain and loss is caused to the complainant. Therefore, it is more
than a professional conduct. During course of investigation
Investigating Officer has collected CDR of the present applicant,
co-accused Mayuri and co accused Dr. Kunal. As per CDR Dr. Utpal
was in continuous touch with co-accused Mayuri vide its Mobile
No.7743907045. The mobile phone of the Mayuri was seized
wherein WhatsApp data was found communicating with the
present applicant by which it is crystal clear that co-accused
Mayuri has shared data of the patients with the present applicant.
The patients were diverted to the present applicant and applicant
has received the monetary gain from said activities. The intention
since inception is apparent. In view of that application deserves to
be rejected.
10. Learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2 also
endorsed the said contentions and submitted that considering the
entire investigation papers which sufficiently shows the intention
on the part of the present applicant by the act of the present
37 apl 1363.22.odt..odt
applicant he has caused loss to the non-applicant No.2. Thus,
prima-facie offence is made out against present applicant and
therefore, application deserves to be rejected.
11. There are moral principles which guide members of
the medical profession in their dealings with each other, which are
termed as medical etiquettes. The basis of a good relationship
between doctors lies in mutual respect and understanding. Said
mutual understanding is essential not only for the sake of
profession but also for welfare of patients. International code of
etiquette for the medical professional states that (i) doctor ought
to behave towards his colleagues as he would have behave
towards him. (ii) doctor must not entice patients away from his
colleagues. The code of medical etiquette offers advise to other
members of the profession that they owe duty to the patients as
well as towards their colleagues.
12. The act of present applicant is not only misconduct or
violation of the professional etiquette but intention since inception
is apparent.
37 apl 1363.22.odt..odt
13. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his
contention placed reliance on State of Haryana and others vs.
Bhajanlal and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, whereas
learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2 placed reliance on the
decision of Ramveer Upadhyay and another vs. State of U.P. and
another in Special Leave Petition (CRL) No.2953/2022 decided on
20.04.2022,State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Golconda Linga Swamy
and another in criminal appeal No.1180/2003 decided on
27.07.2004, R.P. Kapur vs. The State of Punjab reported in 1960
SCR (3) 311, Superintendent of Police, CBI and others vs. Tapan
Kr. Singh in criminal Appeal No.938/1995 decided on 10.04.2003,
Criminal Application No.3134 of 2019 decided on 09.10.2025.
14. On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the entire
investigation papers there is no dispute that applicant as well as
non-applicant No.2 both are medical professionals. As per the
allegations levelled, the co-accused Mayuri Modak was in the
employment of the non-applicant No.2. As per the allegations the
job of said Mayuri was to communicate with the patients maintain
the data of the patients who are visiting the clinic of the non-
applicant No.2 to obtain the fees from them and to maintain
37 apl 1363.22.odt..odt
record of the said fees also. As per the allegations during period of
14.02.2022 to 09.04.2022 though patient namely Abhishekh
Pande, Kshitij Bankar and Ketan Rahadve registered in the clinic
of the non-applicant No.2, there names appears to be scratched
in the entries and amount paid by them was also not given to
non-applicant No.2. Therefore, non-applicant No.2 suspected
about co-accused Mayuri Modak and she was inquired. During
inquiry it revealed that she has not only misappropriated the
amount collected by her from the patients but she has shared data
of the patients with the present applicant and another co-accused
Kunal Ranade and obtained monetary gain from them. Present
applicant also communicated with her and obtained the
information about patients and said patients were treated by the
present applicant and also obtained monetary gain. During
investigation Investigating Officer has seized the mobile hand set
of the present applicant as well as co accused Mayuri Modak. On
verification of the mobile data of co-accused Mayuri Modak it
revealed that she had WhatsApp chat with the present applicant
communicating the details of the patients and present applicant
has also approached to her for getting the said details. During the
course of investigation the Investigating Officer has also collected
37 apl 1363.22.odt..odt
the CDR of the present applicant and co-accused Mayuri Modak
and it is apparent that there was continuous communication
between present applicant and the co-accused.
15. On perusal of the entire investigation papers
especially WhatsApp chat dated 10.01.2022 shows that it was the
present applicant who text her message that she should call him
whenever she is free. Thereafter she has responded call of the
present applicant by 15.01.2022. She has also communicated the
names of the patients to the present applicant and communication
further shows that name of the another patient was also
communicated with the present applicant and against said
information she has received the commission from the present
applicant which was deposited in the account of her husband co-
accused Mayuri Modak. Thus WhatsApp chat clearly shows the
nature of the communication between present applicant and other
co-accused. Account statement of the husband of the co-accused
also substantiated the same. The mobile seizure panchanama of
the co-accused when verified it reveals that there are various calls
as well as WhatsApp chat between her and present applicant.
Thus, on going through the entire investigation papers admittedly,
37 apl 1363.22.odt..odt
prima-facie material is there to connect the present applicant with
the alleged offence.
16. Section 408 of the IPC deals with misappropriation by
clerk or servant. Admittedly, present applicant is not clerk or
servant of the non-applicant No.2. The ingredients to attract the
offence punishable under Section 408 of IPC i.e. criminal breach
of trust by clerk or servant whoever, being a clerk or servant or
employed as a clerk or servant, and being in any manner
entrusted in such capacity with property, or with any dominion
over property, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that
property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall
also be liable to fine. Section 408 is exhaustive form of Section
406. The definition of criminal breach of trust is given under
Section 405. To attract the offence of criminal breach of trust the
ingredients are (i) entrusting a person with property or with any
dominion over property (ii) that person interested (a) dishonestly
misappropriating or converting that property to his own use or (b)
dishonestly using or disposing of that property a wilfully suffering
any other person so to do in violation (i) of any direction of law
37 apl 1363.22.odt..odt
prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, (ii)
of any legal contract made, touching the discharge of such trust.
Admittedly, mere breach of contract does not constitute offence
under Section 405 of Indian Penal Code.
17. As far as present applicant is concerned, he is neither
clerk or servant working with the non-applicant No.2. Therefore,
provision under Section 408 is not applicable against present
applicant.
18. However, the entire investigation papers discloses the
intention of the present applicant since inception. Admittedly, the
intention for which no direct evidence would be available.
Intention is the inner compartment of the mind of that person.
Therefore, the intention is to be inferred from the attending
circumstances. The act of the present applicant communicating
with the co-accused Mayuri Modak asking her to share the data of
the information of the patients who approached to the clinic of
non-applicant No.2, is sufficient to show his intention. To
constitute an offence under Section 420 of the IPC, there has to be
deception of any person either by making a false or misleading
37 apl 1363.22.odt..odt
representation or by other action or by omission (ii) fraudulently
or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property. (iii) to
consent that any person shall retain any property and finally
intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything
which he would not do or omit. Thus, mens rea i.e. intention to
deceive or dishonest intention must be present and in the case of
cheating it must be there from the very beginning for inception.
19. On plain reading of the complaint and other
investigation papers the intention of the present applicant since
inception is apparent. It is also apparent that by his action or
omission he has caused loss to non-applicant No.2 and gained
monetarily for his personal use. Therefore, the offence of cheating
admittedly is made out against the present applicant.
20. In the light of the above facts if the parameters which
are laid down in the case of State of Haryana and others vs.
Bhajanlal and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 is
applied to the present case it does not cover under the parameters
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the case of Ramveer
Upadhyay and another relied upon by learned counsel for the
37 apl 1363.22.odt..odt
non-applicant No.2 wherein by referring the judgment of Monica
Kumar (Dr.) vs. State of U.P. reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781 the
Apex Court held that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution
and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically
laid down in the section itself. In exceptional cases, to prevent
abuse of the process of Court, the High Court might in exercise of
its inherent powers under Section 482 quash criminal
proceedings.
21. The limits of the power under Section 482 where
clearly defined in catena of decisions while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has to
be cautioned. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the
purpose of preventing of abuse of process of any Court or
otherwise to secure ends of justice. Similar observation is made by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs.
Golconda Linga Swamy and another and R.P. Kapur vs. The State
of Punjab (supra).
37 apl 1363.22.odt..odt
22. In view of the settled legal position and by applying
the same to the present case there is no doubt that relevant
evidence is available against present applicant to sustain the
charge and therefore, application deserves to be rejected.
23. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Application is rejected.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
manisha
Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 25/03/2026 10:56:40
