Bombay High Court
Sanjay S/O Shankarrao Pranjale vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Ramdaspeth ... on 23 February, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:3540-DB
44apl827.2022.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 827 OF 2022
APPLICANT :- Sanjay s/o Shankarrao Pranjale,
Aged 53 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Police Line, Ramdaspeth,
Akola, Tah. and District Akola.
..VERSUS..
NON- :- 1) The State of Maharashtra,
APPLICANTS through Police Station Officer,
P.S. Ramdaspeth, Akola, Dist. Akola.
2) Anup Dnyaneshwar Pinjarkar,
Aged 31 years, Occu: Nil,
R/o Choti Umari, Akola, Tah. and
District Akola.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. T.U. Tathod, counsel for applicant.
Mr. A.M. Ghogare, APP for non-applicant No.1/State.
Mr. N.G. Tikar, counsel for non-applicant No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 23/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of Mr. T.U. Tathod, counsel for applicant, Mr. A.M. Ghogare, learned APP for non-applicant No.1/State and Mr. N.G. Tikar, learned counsel for non-applicant No.2, the application is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.
2. By this application, the applicant is seeking to quash and set rkn 44apl827.2022.odt 2 aside the charge-sheet bearing No. 118/2021 dated 26/08/2021, registered as Regular Criminal Case No. 1106/2021, pending on the file of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola, arising out of Crime No. 35/2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The applicant approached before this Court challenging the registration of the criminal offence against him on the ground that applicant and his son was also duped by main accused by issuing fake appointment orders. Therefore, applicant herein cannot said to be the main offender in the present application. According to him, it is accused No.1 who has committed the offence and not by the present applicant. Hence, the applicant seeks indulgence of this Court in the matter.
4. It is further pertinent to note that in the present case, non- applicant No.2, is the nephew of the present applicant, and filed the affidavit dated 05/01/2026 stating that he has no grievance against the present applicant. He has stated that he has never raised any grievance against the present applicant. According to him, applicant has not committed any crime as alleged nor anyway cheated him or any other person. He also support the case of applicant stating that applicant is also one of the victim in the matter. Hence, he support the case of the present applicant to quash and set aside the Criminal Proceedings registered against him.
5. The learned APP has strongly opposed the present application. According to the prosecution, the offence was registered on the complaint of non-applicant No.2. In the complaint, it is stated that the accused persons namely Dr. Shrikant Banu Bakode, Naman, and mother of Naman, on the pretext of securing employment with State Bank of India and the Forest Department, duped the informant and other rkn 44apl827.2022.odt 3 aspirants to the tune of Rs. 9,60,000/-. It is further pointed out that during the course of investigation, statements were recorded which revealed that the applicant was involved in alluring aspirants to part with substantial amounts of money to secure public employment. It is alleged that the present applicant was instrumental in introducing one Vijay Dhore and Santosh Mankar by asking them to pay the amount to main accused, Shrikant Banubakode. Further amount which was refunded by the main accused to the victim was through the account of the present applicant. Hence, on the basis of this allegation, it is the submission of the prosecution that the present applicant is involved in the matter.
6. In the light of these allegation, learned counsel for the applicant states that it is the case of applicant that main accused Banubakode approached to the non-applicant No.2 and informed him that if there are some more persons want the job, he can give the said job to such needy persons. Accordingly, the non-applicant No.2 then informed the present applicant, who is maternal uncle of the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant has also paid certain amount of Rs. 1,50,00/- to Banubakode. As such, they were perusing the main accused for getting the appointment. However, after certain period, they realized that they were duped by the main accused, and the appointment orders issued to them are found to be fake and forged.
7. In these circumstances, the applicant and non-applicant No. 2 pursue the main accused, Naman and his mother, for refund of the amount. The main accused has accordingly refunded the some amounts to the applicants through the bank account of the present applicant. As such, according to the present applicant, he has played no role in the matter and his bank account was used for refund of the amount by the main accused. Except this, there is no role attributed to him in the matter.
rkn 44apl827.2022.odt 4 As such, no offence under Sections 420, 406, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is made out against the applicant in the matter.
8. Non-applicant No. 2, who lodged the complaint, does not dispute this factual aspect. According to him, he informed the applicant about the proposal of the main accused, and both of them paid separate amounts for securing employment. According to him, applicant never cheated to him in the matter.
9. Learned APP has pointed out from the chargesheet that only material evidence available against the present applicant is about the refund of the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- through account of applicant. Except this transaction, there is no other evidence available against him in the matter.
10. In the light of this factual position, the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Deepak Gaba and others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2023) 3 SCC 423 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has considered the scope of Sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and observed in paragraphs No. 18 and 21 as under :-
18. In order to apply Section 420 IPC, namely, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, the ingredients of Section 415 IPC have to be satisfied. To constitute an offence of cheating under Section 415 IPC, a person should be induced, either fraudulently or dishonestly, to deliver any property to any person, or consent that any person shall retain any property. The second class of acts set forth in the section is the intentional inducement of doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do, if she were not so deceived. Thus, the sine qua non of Section 415 of IPC is "fraudulence", "dishonesty", or "intentional inducement", and the absence of these elements would debase the offence of cheating7."
rkn 44apl827.2022.odt 5
21. Section 471 of the IPC 9 is also not attracted. This Section is applicable when a person fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record, which he knows or has reasons to believe to be a forged document or electronic record. This Court in Mohd. Ibrahim8, has elucidated that the condition precedent of an offence under Section 471 IPC is forgery by making a false document or false electronic record or part thereof. Further, to constitute the offence under Section 471 IPC, it has to be proven that the document was "forged" in terms of Section 47010, and "false" in terms of Section 464 IPC11
11. In the light of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that applicant never intended to induce the present applicant in the matter. It is further cleared that applicant is also one of victim duped by the main accused in the matter. The only role attributed to the present applicant is about refund of the amount by the main accused through his account.
12. In view of this, in my opinion, the offence under Sections 420, 406, 468, 471 is not attracted against the present applicant in the matter. Accordingly, continuation of the proceeding against the present applicant would nothing but abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
a] The criminal application is allowed.
b] The proceedings bearing Regular Criminal Case No.
1106/2021 pending on the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola, along with Chargesheet bearing No. 118/2021 dated 26/08/2021 with Crime No. 35/2021 dated 18/01/2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are hereby quashed and set rkn 44apl827.2022.odt 6 aside against present applicant only.
c] All pending applications stand disposed of.
13. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No orders as to costs.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J) rkn