[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramavtar Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 13 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5936
1 MCRC-8485-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 13th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8485 of 2017
RAMAVTAR SINGH TOMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dharamvir Singh Parihar - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri Rajeev Shrivastava- Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2
Shri Utkarsh Bajpai - Advocate for the respondent [R-3].
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
petitioner seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No. 53/2016 registered
at Economic Offences Wing, Bhopal for offence punishable under Sections
409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC and Section 13(1)(D) r/w 13(2)
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present petition are that the
petitioner was posted as Branch Manager of Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank
Maryadit, Joura Branch, District Morena during the year 2009-10. The
allegations emanate from certain financial transactions undertaken in relation
to the Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti, Sumawali, whereby it is alleged that on
the basis of a forged and fabricated bond containing suspicious and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5936
2 MCRC-8485-2017
incomplete particulars and bearing fraudulent signatures of office-bearers of
the Society, substantial amounts were disbursed in lump sum. The inquiry
conducted by the Audit Officer of the Cooperative Department concluded
that the Society Manager, Chairman, members of the Board of Directors,
along with the Branch Supervisor and Cashier of the Bank, acted in collusion
and that the Branch Manager accorded approval to the transaction without
proper verification, thereby facilitating misappropriation. Subsequently,
respondent No. 3 submitted an application before the Economic Offences
Wing, Bhopal, along with a copy of the inquiry report submitted by O.N.
Sharma, seeking action against the petitioner. After the complaint was
lodged, the Economic Offences Wing, Bhopal, informed its Gwalior Unit. By
letter dated 08.07.2014, respondent No. 2 directed the petitioner to appear
before it on 25.07.2014. The petitioner appeared before the Economic
Offences Wing, Gwalior Unit, on 25.07.2014 and submitted his reply.
Thereafter, on 26.12.2016, Crime No. 53/2016 was registered against the
petitioner under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code, as well as under Section 13(1) read with Section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present
proceedings arise out of a fundamental misconception regarding the distinct
and independent functioning of a Cooperative Bank and a Cooperative
Society. A Cooperative Bank operates strictly in accordance with the
regulatory framework, circulars, and supervisory control prescribed by the
Reserve Bank of India and the competent banking authorities. In contrast, a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5936
3 MCRC-8485-2017
Cooperative Society functions within its own statutory sphere, primarily for
the purpose of extending agricultural credit facilities and other benefits to its
members. The spheres of operation of the Cooperative Bank and the
Cooperative Society are entirely separate and distinct; their administrative
structures, procedural mechanisms, and departmental hierarchies function
independently and autonomously. The Bank has no role in the internal
management or distribution of funds by the Society to its members beyond
compliance with banking formalities.
4. It is further submitted that prior to 13.11.2009, under the then
prevailing procedure governing loan disbursement, the Secretary of the
Society would affix his signature on the reverse side of the cheque issued by
the Bank and record the name of the person authorized to receive the
amount. In the alternative, the intended recipient would sign on the reverse
side of the cheque, and such signature would be duly attested and certified
by the Secretary of the Society. Upon verification of the Society's account
and authentication of the endorsement appearing on the cheque, the Bank
would release the amount to the person so designated. Thereafter, the Society
would undertake the internal distribution of the loan amounts to its
respective members in accordance with its own rules and resolutions. The
role of the Bank is confined solely to ensuring that sufficient funds were
available within the sanctioned credit limit of the Society and, upon such
confirmation, to effect payment. The Bank bore no responsibility whatsoever
with respect to the subsequent distribution or utilization of the funds by the
Society or its members. Subsequently, by order dated 13.11.2009 issued by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5936
4 MCRC-8485-2017
the District Cooperative Bank, the procedure was amended to require that
each member of the Cooperative Society maintain an individual savings
account with the Bank. Under the revised system, any withdrawal of funds
by the Society necessitated the joint signatures of the Secretary and the
President of the Society, and the sanctioned amount was thereafter directly
credited into the individual savings accounts of the concerned farmers. The
farmers were then at liberty to withdraw the credited sums independently
from their personal accounts. Even under this modified framework, the
Bank's liability remained strictly limited to disbursing funds in accordance
with the instructions and authorizations furnished by the Society. The Bank
had neither supervisory control over the Society nor responsibility for any
alleged irregularities or misappropriation committed at the level of the
Society.
5. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 3 preferred a
representation before the Commissioner, Cooperative Department, District
Morena, alleging certain irregularities purportedly committed by members
and office-bearers of the Society and seeking an inquiry into the affairs of
the Society. Pursuant thereto, Shri O.N. Sharma, Audit Officer, Cooperative
Department, District Morena, was directed to conduct an inquiry. However,
while submitting his report, the said Inquiry Officer travelled beyond the
scope of his mandate and made adverse observations against the Branch
Manager of the Bank, despite the fact that no such allegations were made in
the original complaint nor the conduct of the Branch Manager was the
subject matter of the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer lacked jurisdiction and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5936
5 MCRC-8485-2017
authority to record findings or comments concerning the functioning of the
Bank or its officers. Upon receipt of the said inquiry report, the Central
Cooperative Bank initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner
and issued a charge-sheet. A full-fledged departmental inquiry was
conducted in accordance with applicable service rules. Upon conclusion of
the inquiry, the competent Inquiry Officer categorically held that none of the
charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and accordingly
exonerated the petitioner of all allegations. The finding of exoneration was
clear, reasoned, and unambiguous.
6. It is further submitted that despite such categorical exoneration in
the departmental proceedings, Respondent No. 3 submitted the inquiry report
of Shri O.N. Sharma before the competent authority and sought initiation of
criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner was called upon to
submit his explanation and furnished a detailed reply refuting all allegations.
However, in complete disregard of the petitioner's explanation and the
findings recorded in the departmental inquiry, the authorities proceeded to
register a criminal case against the petitioner, thereby committing serious
procedural improprieties and legal irregularities.
7. It is further submitted that the invocation of Section 13(1)(d) read
with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is wholly
misconceived. The essential ingredients for constituting an offence under the
said provisions include a specific demand for illegal gratification, its
voluntary acceptance, and recovery or seizure of the tainted amount by the
prosecution. In the present case, none of these indispensable elements are
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5936
6 MCRC-8485-2017
either alleged or established. There is no accusation of demand or acceptance
of illegal gratification, nor there is any recovery of tainted money from the
petitioner. The petitioner did not issue any cheque in violation of established
norms, nor he engaged in any manipulation, fabrication, or irregular
distribution of funds. The Bank merely discharged its limited obligation by
verifying the endorsements on the cheque and disbursing the amount in
accordance with prescribed banking procedures. In view of the foregoing
facts and circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased
to allow the present petition and quash the First Information Report
registered as Crime No. 53/2016 at Police Station, Economic Offences Wing,
District Bhopal, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code, along with Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, in the interest of justice.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2
submits that the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is wholly misconceived. It is settled law that at the stage of
quashing of FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this
Hon'ble Court is not required to meticulously examine the evidence or
adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact. Interference under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is warranted only where the allegations, taken at face value, do not
disclose any offence. In the present case, the material collected during
preliminary inquiry clearly reveals prima facie commission of offences under
Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5936
7 MCRC-8485-2017
well as under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
9. It is submitted that the inquiry conducted by Shri O.N. Sharma
categorically revealed that a forged and fabricated bond, bearing fraudulent
signatures of the President, Manager and a Director of the concerned
Cooperative Society, and containing incomplete and suspicious particulars,
was submitted at the Joura Branch of the District Cooperative Central Bank.
The said document formed the basis for financial transactions undertaken by
the Bank. The inquiry report further records that despite apparent
irregularities and deficiencies in the bond, the same was processed and acted
upon by the concerned bank officials. The Branch Supervisor examined the
bond, the Cashier disbursed a lump-sum amount to the Society Manager, and
the Branch Manager accorded approval to the entire transaction without
proper verification and due diligence as mandated under banking norms.
10. Learned counsel submits that the role attributed to the petitioner is
not merely mechanical or ministerial in nature. As Branch Manager, he was
the supervisory and controlling authority of the branch and bore ultimate
responsibility for ensuring compliance with statutory and procedural
safeguards. The material collected indicates that the petitioner, in collusion
with other co-accused persons, facilitated the fraudulent withdrawal and
misappropriation of funds. Such acts, if established, squarely attract the
ingredients of criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery for the purpose of
cheating, and use of forged documents as genuine. The element of criminal
conspiracy is evident from the coordinated acts of the Society office-bearers
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5936
8 MCRC-8485-2017
and the Bank officials in processing and disbursing funds on the basis of a
forged instrument.
11. It is further submitted that the contention of the petitioner
regarding the distinct spheres of operation of the Cooperative Bank and the
Cooperative Society cannot absolve him of criminal liability. While the
institutions may function independently in administrative terms, the Bank,
through its Branch Manager, is under a statutory and fiduciary obligation to
verify the authenticity and legality of documents forming the basis of
financial transactions. Failure to perform such duty, coupled with approval
of a transaction founded upon a forged bond, constitutes grave misconduct
and criminality. The defense sought to be raised by the petitioner pertains to
factual aspects which can only be adjudicated upon after full investigation
and, if necessary, trial. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that
the present petition seeking quashment of FIR be dismissed.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the petition
is an attempt to thwart legitimate prosecution arising out of grave financial
irregularities and misappropriation. Respondent No. 3, being the In-charge
Manager of the concerned Cooperative Society, acted bona fide in bringing
the matter to the notice of the competent authorities upon discovering serious
discrepancies in the financial transactions undertaken during the relevant
period.
13. It is submitted that the inquiry conducted by the competent
authority revealed that substantial amounts were disbursed from the Bank in
a lump-sum manner on the basis of a forged and fabricated bond, which did
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5936
9 MCRC-8485-2017
not bear genuine signatures of the authorized office-bearers and contained
incomplete particulars. The disbursement of funds in such a manner was
contrary to established procedure and resulted in financial loss to the Society
and its members.
14. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot evade liability
by asserting that the Bank's role was confined to mechanical verification. As
Branch Manager, he was entrusted with supervisory control and was duty-
bound to ensure strict adherence to banking regulations and safeguards. The
approval of a transaction based on a forged bond, and the facilitation of
lump-sum disbursement without ensuring compliance with mandatory
procedures, demonstrate active participation and culpable negligence
amounting to criminal misconduct. The conspiracy alleged is borne out from
the coordinated acts of all accused persons, which enabled the
misappropriation.
15. It is further submitted that the scope of judicial scrutiny under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited, and the veracity of the petitioner's defense
can only be examined during investigation or trial. Respondent No. 3
submits that the FIR contains specific allegations disclosing commission of
cognizable offences, and the investigation has been initiated on the basis of
credible material. Quashing the FIR at this stage would amount to stifling a
legitimate prosecution and would cause grave prejudice to the interests of the
Society and its members. It is, therefore, prayed that the petition be
dismissed in the interest of justice and that the investigating agency be
permitted to complete the investigation in accordance with law.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5936
10 MCRC-8485-2017
16. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
17. It is apposite to reiterate the well-settled parameters governing
exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The inherent power is to be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases to prevent abuse of the process
of court or to secure the ends of justice. The Supreme Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has
authoritatively laid down illustrative categories where quashment of FIR may
be justified. It has been consistently held that at the stage of considering a
petition for quashing, the Court is not required to embark upon an
appreciation of evidence or to adjudicate disputed questions of fact.
18. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex Court reiterated that the
power of quashing should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution
and that when the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence,
investigation should ordinarily be permitted to proceed. Similarly, in State of
Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, it has been observed that the Court
should not enter into meticulous examination of the case diary or evaluate
the sufficiency of evidence at the threshold stage.
19. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case,
this Court finds that the FIR and the inquiry material prima facie allege that a
forged and fabricated bond was submitted and acted upon for the purpose of
disbursal of funds. The bond contained irregularities apparent on the ace of
record; and despite such deficiencies, the transaction was processed and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5936
11 MCRC-8485-2017
approved by the concerned bank officials, including the petitioner in his
capacity as Branch Manager. The allegations, if taken at face value, disclose
ingredients of offences relating to criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery
and use of forged documents. The element of conspiracy is alleged on the
basis of coordinated acts of multiple accused persons culminating in
financial loss.
20. The contention of the petitioner that the Cooperative Bank and
Cooperative Society function in distinct spheres may constitute a matter of
defense. Whether the petitioner's role was merely ministerial or whether he
failed to discharge his supervisory obligation in a manner amounting to
criminality is essentially a question of fact requiring investigation and, if
necessary, adjudication upon evidence. At this stage, the Court cannot record
a finding that no offence is made out.
21. The plea of exoneration in departmental proceedings also does not
advance the petitioner's case. It is trite law that departmental proceedings and
criminal prosecution operate in different fields and are governed by distinct
standards of proof. Exoneration in a departmental inquiry does not ipso facto
bar criminal prosecution, particularly where the allegations disclose
commission of cognizable offences. The scope, object and evidentiary
thresholds in the two proceedings are fundamentally different.
22. With regard to the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, the submission that absence of demand or
acceptance of illegal gratification negates the offence cannot be conclusively
accepted at this stage. The provision, as it stood at the relevant time,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5936
12 MCRC-8485-2017
encompassed obtaining for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage by abusing one's position as a public servant. Whether the
petitioner's alleged acts fall within the ambit of the provision is a matter that
requires thorough investigation.
23. It is well settled that inherent jurisdiction cannot be exercised to
conduct a mini trial or to appreciate the probable defense of the accused. The
allegations in the FIR, read as a whole, cannot be said to be absurd or
inherently improbable so as to fall within any of the categories enumerated
in Bhajan Lal (supra). The petition essentially invites this Court to evaluate
the merits of the allegations and to accept the defense version, which is
impermissible at this stage.
24. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences and that
the issues raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact requiring
investigation. No case is made out warranting exercise of inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
25. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The
observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the
present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
