Chattisgarh High Court
Siddharth Chintaman Mandavkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
MANPREET
KAUR
2026:CGHC:7484-DB
NAFR
Digitally signed
by MANPREET
KAUR
Date: 2026.02.11
18:06:12 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 446 of 2026
Siddharth Chintaman Mandavkar S/o Late Shri Chintaman Mandavkar
Aged About 65 Years R/o 68/b, Maitri Vihar Supela Bhilai, District Durg,
Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho, Police Station- Berla, District-
Bemetara (C.G.), 491332
2 - S. Malik Branch Manager, About 55 Years Posted At Dena Bank,
Berla District- Bemetara (C.G.), 491332
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Rahul Ambast, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11.02.2026
1. Heard Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Rahul Ambast, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard 2 Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondent No.1 / State.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer:
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order of framing of charges dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure P/1), order taking cognizance dated 01.12.2025 (Annexure P/2), chargesheet no. 63/2023 dated 07.03.2023 (Annexure P/3)(colly), and the entire criminal case no. 6679/2025 including consequential proceedings against the Petitioner for alleged commission of offence under section 420, 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending before Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara (C.G.)."
3. The prosecution case, in substance, is that during the period when the petitioner Siddharth Chintaman Mandavkar was posted as Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda (then Dena Bank), Berla Branch, District Bemetara, he in furtherance of common intention with co-accused Raj Kishore Behera (borrower and Power of Attorney holder), Praveer Kumar Chakravorty (supplier of Poly- House structures under the name M/s Agrotech Solutions) and Smt. Vandana Chakravorty, entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Bank by sanctioning and disbursing a term loan of Rs.73.80 lakhs for establishment of a Naturally Ventilated Poly- House Unit over land bearing Khasra No. 1043/3 at Village Aheri, Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg. The loan was processed on the 3 basis of allegedly false and misleading project documents and valuation report, and an initial sum of Rs.30.00 lakhs was disbursed on 27.03.2017 through RTGS in favour of M/s Agrotech Solutions. Prior to sanction the petitioner allegedly demanded and accepted Rs.30,000/- in cash from the borrower as illegal gratification for ensuring loan approval. Although vendor receipts were generated showing receipt of substantial cash advances for construction, no Poly-House unit was ever erected at the project site, and upon physical verification conducted on 12.07.2018 the land was found vacant. Out of the disbursed amount Rs.5.00 lakhs was transferred back from the supplier's account to the borrower and was not duly disclosed to the Bank, and only Rs.4.00 lakhs was later deposited towards the loan account. The loan account was consequently classified as fraudulent and reported to the Reserve Bank of India and that by such acts the accused persons allegedly misappropriated approximately Rs.21.00 lakhs of Bank funds, thereby causing wrongful loss to the Bank and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves, attracting offences under Sections 420, 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned prosecution is wholly misconceived and unsustainable in law, inasmuch as the essential ingredients of Sections 420 and 409 IPC are conspicuously absent. For an offence under Section 420 IPC, it is mandatory to establish deception, dishonest inducement 4 and fraudulent intention at the very inception of the transaction, whereas the material collected during investigation itself demonstrates that the loan proposal was processed, scrutinized and sanctioned strictly in accordance with internal banking norms and prescribed procedures, without any allegation of false representation or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner at the time of sanction or disbursement, and the petitioner, being Branch Manager, had neither contractual nor statutory control over the execution or completion of the Poly-House project, which was entirely within the domain of the borrower and the supplier. Mere subsequent non-construction or default in repayment cannot retroactively create criminal intent; further, the ingredients of Section 409 IPC are also not attracted, as there was no specific entrustment of property nor any dishonest misappropriation by the petitioner in a fiduciary capacity, the loan transaction being a normal banker-customer relationship, and criminal breach of trust cannot be inferred merely from official position, as held in CBI v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 591. The allegations in the FIR and charge-sheet are vague, omnibus and bereft of any specific overt act or material showing wrongful gain to the petitioner, and appear to stem from internal administrative findings rather than any criminal conduct. It is well settled in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, that where allegations do not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of 5 process of law. The present case, at its highest, discloses a civil or commercial dispute arising out of a loan transaction and alleged default, which cannot be converted into a criminal prosecution to exert pressure. Moreover, the investigating agency has failed to fairly consider the defence material including sanction notes, verification reports and appointment records demonstrating that the petitioner acted strictly in discharge of official duties without dishonest motive, rendering the investigation one-sided and arbitrary in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. Even the Bank's own conduct in continuing to treat the account as a regular loan account, charging interest and conducting routine inspections negates any allegation of fraud or conspiracy. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is unjustified, excessive and liable to be quashed in the interest of justice.
5. Learned State counsel, per contra, submits that the impugned order framing charges is perfectly legal and justified, as the material collected during investigation clearly discloses a prima facie case against the petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 409 and 34 IPC. It is contended that the petitioner, being the then Branch Manager, was not a mere formal sanctioning authority but played an active and pivotal role in processing and facilitating the loan in question, including allegedly directing the borrower to approach a particular supplier, and despite knowing the doubtful credentials of the project and the parties involved, ensured 6 sanction and disbursement of a substantial amount of Rs.30.00 lakhs, which was thereafter misappropriated. It is further submitted that there are specific allegations that the petitioner demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.30,000/- prior to sanction, which itself reflects dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. The subsequent non-construction of the Poly- House, transfer of Rs.5.00 lakhs back to the borrower from the supplier's account, and failure to utilize the loan amount for the sanctioned purpose constitute strong circumstantial evidence of prior meeting of minds and common intention. At the stage of framing of charge, meticulous appreciation of evidence is impermissible and the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case exists, and not whether the prosecution will ultimately succeed. The State submits that the defence pleas raised by the petitioner pertain to disputed questions of fact requiring trial and cannot be adjudicated in a petition seeking quashment. Therefore, in view of the material on record disclosing grave suspicion regarding the petitioner's complicity, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and the matter be allowed to proceed to trial in accordance with law.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition.
7. Considering the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the case diary, charge-sheet and the impugned order framing charges, this Court is of the 7 considered opinion that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only required to ascertain whether a prima facie case or grave suspicion exists against the accused, and not to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or evaluate the probable defence of the accused. The material collected during investigation, including the loan sanction records, fund disbursal details, transfer of amounts between the supplier and borrower, the alleged demand of illegal gratification, and the subsequent finding that no Poly-House unit was constructed despite substantial disbursement, prima facie gives rise to grave suspicion regarding the petitioner's role and involvement in the alleged offences under Sections 420, 409 and 34 IPC. The contentions raised by the petitioner relating to absence of dishonest intention, lack of entrustment, and purely civil nature of the dispute involve disputed questions of fact which require evidence and cross-examination and therefore cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under inherent jurisdiction. In view of the settled legal position that interference at the stage of charge is warranted only in rare cases where no offence is made out on the face of record, this Court finds no perversity or illegality in the order dated 19.01.2026 framing charges.
8. In the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting interference, the petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Manpreet