Criminal Application No. 2412 of 2023 · High Court · 2025

cria-2412.231 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2412 OF 20231) Ambika Mahila Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Shrirampur, Taluka-Shrirampur, District-Ahmednagar, Through its Manager, Annasaheb Kacharu Jadhav, Age-53 years, Occu:Manager,2) Sushilatai Vithalrao Navale, Age-78 years, Occu:Household,3) Kavita Devendra Deshmukh, Age-45 years, Occu:Service,4) Kusumtai Nandkumar Jadhav, Age-55 years, Occu:Household,5) Rekhatai Balasaheb Ghate, Age-55 years, Occu:Household,6) Anita Kiran Mali, Age-50 years, Occu:Household,7) Latabai Prakashrao Dhanwate, Age-55 years, Occu:Household,8) Shailatai Babasaheb Chaudhari, Age-55 years, Occu:Household,9) Mangal Keshavrao Bangal, Age-50 years, Occu:Household,10) Anita Tulshiram Shelke, Age-38 years, Occu:Household,11) Gita Ranjan @! Ranjit Girme, Age-40 years, Occu:Household, cria-2412.23212) Kusumtai Murlidhar Mohan, Age-70 years, Occu:Household,13) Karimabi Karimbhai Sayyad, Age-65 years, Occu:Household,14) Annasaheb Kacharu Jadhav, Age-54 years, Occu:Service as Manager,15) Rajaram Nivrutti Kakade, Age-66 years, Occu:Former Manager,All R/o-Ambika Mahila Patsanstha,Behind Kanda Market, Shrirampur,Taluka-Shrirampur, District-Ahmednagar. ...APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Incharge of Police Station City Shrirampur, Taluka-Shrirampur, District-Ahmednagar,2) Ramesh S/o Ramlal Muttha, Age-61 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Malwadgaon, Taluka-Shrirampur, District-Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Senior Counsel i/by Mr. Sandip R. Sapkal Advocate for Applicants. Mr. N.R. Dayama, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr. V.D. Hon, Senior Counsel i/by Mr. Ashwin V. Hon Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 10th JULY 2025DATE OF PRONOUNCING ORDER : 14th AUGUST 2025 cria-2412.233 ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :1.Present Application has been filed for quashing theproceedings in R.C.C. No. 90 of 2023 pending before thelearned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shrirampur, District-Ahmednagar, arising out of the First Information Report (forshort “the FIR”) vide Crime No. 342 of 2022 registered withShrirampur Police Station, Taluka-Shrirampur, District-Ahmednagar, on 19th May 2022 for the offence punishable underSections 120-B, 192, 403, 406, 409, 418, 420, 421, 424, 467,468, 469 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. V.D. Sapkal, instructedby learned Advocate Mr. Sandeep R. Sapkal for applicants,learned APP Mr. N.R. Dayama for respondent No.1 and learnedSenior Counsel Mr. V.D. Hon, instructed by learned Advocate Mr.Ashwin V. Hon for respondent No.2.3.Learned Senior Counsel Mr. V.D. Sapkal, instructed by Mr.Sandeep Sapkal Advocate for applicants has taken us throughthe entire charge-sheet. He submits that respondent No.2 hadmortgaged various grain items by keeping it in the warehouse of cria-2412.234application No.1 Patsanstha and even as per his contention, thetransaction was going on since last many years. The informantfiled Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.167 of 2022 with thelearned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shrirampur for sendingthe case for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code ofCriminal Procedure. He contended in the said application that thepresent applicants have committed offence under Sections120-B, 192, 403, 406, 409, 418, 420, 421, 424, 467, 468, 469read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The saidapplication came to be allowed and the FIR was registered. Fromthe application as well as in the FIR (which is nothing but thereproduction of the contents of the application), it can be seenthat the informant trader alleged that he is carrying out businessin grains/pulses. He purchases the grains/pulses when its pricein market is low, store it and then after the prices go up he sellsit. Applicant No.1 Patsanstha is having its warehouses, whereinby keeping those grains, the Patsanstha gives loan to the extentof 70% to 80% of the value of the grains/pulses. Originalaccused Nos.3 to 14 are the directors and accused No.2 is themanager. Accused No.15 was the ex-manager of Patsanstha whowas holding the said post when respondent No.2 had kept hispulses in the warehouse of applicant No.1. The transaction was cria-2412.235going on since 8 to 10 years prior to the application. Informantwas granted loan of Rs.25,00,000/- on 12th October 2020. Theoriginal receipts of those purchases are with accused No.1 andthe period of the mortgage loan was of one year. The informantsays that after the period of one year was over, when informantwent to accused No.1 along with amount towards the loanrepayment with interest and rent of the warehouse, at that timeoriginal accused No.15 told that accused No.1 has already soldthe pulses which he has kept in the warehouse, in March 2021itself. The informant says that he was shocked with the reply andaccording to him, all this has been done for the wrongful loss ofinformant and wrongful gain to accused No.1 Patsanstha. He hadkept in all 1645 gunny bags (916.60 Quintal) of Soybean. Out ofthat, 1132 gunny bags were sold to original accused Nos.16 to18 without his consent. 4.The learned Senior Counsel submits that the papers in thecharge-sheet contain all the documents i.e. the loan agreements,application, receipts, stamp papers, warehouse receipts. It alsocontains the resolution in the Board of Directors meeting dated20th February 2021, wherein the note was taken that theinformant had taken loan of Rs.25,00,000/- on 12th October2020 and Rs.4,40,000/- on 14th October 2020. As on 31st cria-2412.236December 2020, the outstanding loan amount wasRs.30,24,503/-. It was in the name of Chandan TradingCompany. For Chandan Traders, loan was taken to the extent ofRs.16,50,000/- on 9th October 2020 and Rs.4,35,000/- on 14thOctober 2020, as well as Rs.4,20,000/- on 16th October 2020. Ason 31st December 2020, the outstanding loan amount wasRs.25,75,277/-, with rent of Rs.7/- per month per gunny bagand 15% GST. Note was also taken that Chandan TradingCompany as well as Chandan Traders had manipulated the gatepass by erasing and had taken 1132 gunny bags out of 3793gunny bags. The FIR to that extent has been tried to be lodgedwith Shrirampur City Police Station, however, it was not acceptedand therefore, for remaining gunny bags to the extent of 2661,the auction proceeding was taken. If we consider the applicationfor loan, there is already a stipulation, at Term No.14, whichstipulates that:-^^14½ ekykph jDde Hk:u eky fu/kkZfjr osGsr lksMowu u ?ksrY;klekykph tkghj fyykokus fodzh d:u jDde olqy dsyh tkbZy- jdesphHkjikbZ iw.kZi.ks u >kY;kl moZfjr jdesph tckcnkjh dtZnkjkoj jkghyo olqyhlkBh dkjokbZ dj.ksr ;sowu O;kt o brj [kpkZlg loZ jDdeolqy dsyh tkbZy-^^ cria-2412.237.English translation of the same is as under:-“14) If the goods are not cleared within thestipulated time by making payment of the amount,the amount shall be recovered by selling goods inpublic auction. If the full amount is not recovered,the debtor shall be held liable for the remainingbalance, and recovery proceedings shall beinitiated to recover the entire amount along withinterest and other expenses.” (Translated by Senior Translator and Interpreter, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad)5.Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants further submitsthat thus a right was given to the Patsanstha that if the loanamount is not paid at the end of the loan period i.e. one yearfrom the date on which the articles were kept, the stock can besold in auction. Accordingly, initially notices were given on 10thFebruary 2021 and it was informed that the outstanding amountshould be cleared within seven days otherwise the stock wouldbe put to auction. On 11th February 2021, legal opinion wassought wherein it was also noted that the informant appears tohave gone out of station. This could also be seen from thecommunication from Shrirampur Taluka Police Station dated 1stMarch 2021, wherein it was informed that the informant and the cria-2412.238family members have fled away without giving amounts to theagriculturists from whom they had purchased Soybean, Maizeand others pulses and had given fabricated receipts, therebycommitted cheating of Lakhs of rupees. The entire family wentmissing since 6th February 2021 and therefore, the police stationthen made inquiry, as to how much pulses or other grains havebeen stored with applicant No.1 Patsanstha. All these aspects areon record in the charge-sheet itself and therefore, whatever thereceipts those were alleged to be deposited by the informantwith applicant No.1 Patsanstha, they are forged and he cannotthen say that there is fabrication of receipts by the applicants.The entire transaction was in fact commercial/civil in nature andunnecessarily the informant, as a pressurizing tactics, hasresorted to the criminal complaint. Learned Senior Counsel relieson the decision in Mohammed Ibrahim and others vs. State ofBihar and another, (2009) 8 SCC 751, wherein the Hon’ble ApexCourt in Para No.8 has observed thus:-“8. This Court has time and again drawn attention to thegrowing tendency of complainants attempting to give thecloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentiallyand purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressureon the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or tosubject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts shouldensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling cria-2412.239scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes. But atthe same, it should be noted that several disputes of a civilnature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offencesand if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even ifthey also amount to civil disputes. [See: G. Sagar Suri v.State of U.P., [2000 (2) SCC 636 and Indian Oil Corpn. v.NEPC India Ltd., [2006 (6) SCC 736]. Let us examine thematter keeping the said principles in mind. “6.Learned Senior Counsel also points out that co-accused,original accused No.19 – Dnyandeo @ Dnyaneshwar AnnasahebPawar has approached this Court by filing Criminal Writ PetitionNo.1866 of 2022 and by order dated 21st September 2023 (towhich Division Bench one of us i.e. SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.was party), it has been held that:-“6Crime came to be registered based on an orderpassed under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.The applicant is an auction purchaser. Public notice of auctionsale in daily “Lokmat” was given. True it was a short notice.The challenge, however, has been made to the auction sale ayear thereafter. Respondent No.2/borrower did not pay anyof the monthly installment towards repayment of the loan.The credit society was, therefore, justified to sell the pledgedSoybean in public auction. There is also nothing to indicatethat price for which the present applicant purchased theSoybean was grossly meager than the then prevailing marketprice of the Soybean. We fail to understand as to how thepetitioner could be said to have committed any offence. Wefind it to be a fit case to grant relief of quashment of FIR.Asking the petitioner to stand trial based on such material, cria-2412.2310would be an abuse of process of Court. Interest of justicealso demands grant of petition. The petition is allowed interms of prayer clauses “B” and “BB”.”7.Learned Senior Counsel submits that it would be unjust toask the present applicants, therefore, to face the trial.8.Per contra, the learned APP for respondent No.1 andlearned Senior Counsel Mr. V.D. Hon instructed by learnedAdvocate Mr. A.V. Hon, strongly opposed the application andsubmitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Ibrahimand others vs. State of Bihar and another, (supra), itself, hasclarified that even if civil disputes in some cases may alsocontain the ingredients of criminal offences, such disputes willhave to be then entertained. The present case is of that nature.It appears that applicant No.1 Patsanstha had made someconfusion regarding Chandan Trading Company and ChandanTraders. Though in the application, printed form, Term No.14, asabove is there, yet in the complaint itself it has been stated byrespondent No.2 that he used to clear his dues after the periodof one year and this was going on since last about 8 to 10 years.At no point of time such procedure was adhered to. The period ofclearing the loan is of one year and the decision to sell the grainsbelonging to the informant was taken by resolution dated 25th cria-2412.2311March 2021, when the loan that was taken was on 12th October2020. So it was within the period of one year and therefore, theentire procedure that has been adopted was wrong and while theauction that was made, there is forgery of the receipts. Undersuch circumstance, when the charge-sheet is filed, there shouldbe trial.9.At the outset, it is also to be noted that applicant No.1Patsanstha appears to have filed suits before the Co-operativeCourt, Shrirampur, by filing Dispute No.5 of 2019, which came tobe decided on 26th April 2019 and the present informant and hisfamily members have been directed to pay amount ofRs.22,73,922/-, along with the interest at the rate of 16% perannum on the amount of Rs.18,88,403/- from 1st October 2018,till the realization. It was also decreed that if the defendantstherein failed to mitigate the said amount, it can be recoveredfrom the grains which have been kept as mortgage. Similar typeof order was also passed in Dispute No.213 of 2020, by the sameCourt on 25th February 2021, in respect of the recovery of theloan amount. However, it is to be noted that it is in respect ofthe loan amount that was stated to have been taken in the year2015. That means, for the earlier outstanding amount,application No.1 Patsanstha has undertaken the legal procedure. cria-2412.2312In the loan agreement itself, the above said stipulation is thereand further Term No.16 says that, in the installments to be paid,there should be inclusion of interest and other expenses. If theinstallments are not paid, then at the every quarter ending i.e.June, September, December or March or as decided by thedirectors, the amount of interest as well as any other incidentalexpenses would be debited to the loan account and such amountshould be paid within fifteen days, otherwise it would be treatedas outstanding. 10. The resolution passed by the Board of Directors is part ofthe charge-sheet, wherein all the details have been considered inrespect of Chandan Trading Company as well as ChandanTraders. The contention of the applicants is supported by theletter by the Police Station Officer of Shrirampur Taluka PoliceStation, dated 1st March 2021. Yet, it is to be noted that noticewas issued to the informant on 10th February 2021, regardingthe payment to be made and time of seven days was given bythe applicants to make the payment in respect of theoutstanding amount. The application and the FIR is silent on thepoint of notice. Now, when Term No.16 stipulates the payment ofamount as per the installment, the FIR is silent as to why theinstallments were not given as agreed. The informant cannot put cria-2412.2313something orally in defence when his own written contract isotherwise. Under such circumstance, we agree that thetransaction between the informant and applicant No.1Patsanstha was of contract and the remedy would be civil innature. The dispute is essentially of civil nature which appears tohave been given cloak of a criminal offence and therefore, thedecision in Mohammed Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar andanother, (supra), would be applicable. This is a fit case wherewe should exercise our powers under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure. Hence, we proceed to pass following order:- O R D E R(I)The Application stands allowed.(II) The proceedings in R.C.C. No.90 of 2023pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate FirstClass, Shrirampur, District-Ahmednagar, arising outof the First Information Report vide Crime No. 342of 2022, registered with Shrirampur City PoliceStation, Taluka-Shrirampur, District-Ahmednagar,on 19th May 2022, for the offence punishableunder Sections 120-B, 192, 403, 406, 409, 418,420, 421, 424, 467, 468, 469 read with Section 34of the Indian Penal Code, stands quashed and setaside as against applicant Nos. 1 to 15 i.e. cria-2412.2314- 1) Ambika Mahila Nagari Sahakari Pat SansthaLtd., Shrirampur,2) Sushilatai Vithalrao Navale,3) Kavita Devendra Deshmukh, 4) KusumtaiNandkumar Jadhav, 5) Rekhatai Balasaheb Ghate,6) Anita Kiran Mali, 7) Latabai PrakashraoDhanwate, 8) Shailatai Babasaheb Chaudhari,9) Mangal Keshavrao Bangal, 10) Anita TulshiramShelke, 11) Gita Ranjan @ Ranjit Girme,12) Kusumtai Murlidhar Mohan, 13) KarimabiKarimbhai Sayyad, 14) Annasaheb Kacharu Jadhavand 15) Rajaram Nivrutti Kakade. [SANJAY A. DESHMUKH] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGEasb/AUG25