Bombay High Court
Satish S/O. Maruti Vitkar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 27 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:14428-DB
901-APPLN-2179-19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2179 OF 2019
Satish Maruti Vitkar ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra and Another ..RESPONDENTS
....
Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for applicant
Mr. , A.P.P. for respondent no.1 - State
....
CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
DATE : 27th MARCH, 2026
PER COURT :
. This application takes exception to the F.I.R. No. 160 of 2019
dated 09th June, 2019 registered with Anandnagar Police Station, Dist.
Osmanabad for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 417, 468,
34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.')
lodged by one Piraji Manjule. Exception is also taken to the charge-sheet no.
151 of 2020, proceeding bearing R.C.C. No. 322 of 2025 and order taking
cognizance dated 25th November, 2020 passed by the Court of C.J.M.,
Osmanabad. In the said F.I.R. total six accused were named. The present
application is filed at the instance of Accused No.1 - Satish.
2. It is alleged in the said F.I.R. that Respondent No.2 / informant
was dealing in business of crushing stone and he was fond of literature and
art. Therefore, he registered his production house on 30 th July, 2016 under
1 / 12
901-APPLN-2179-19.odt
the name and style "Real History Film Production". He then, in order to
produce a film under the name 'Dandam', has registered it with Akhil Bhartiya
Marathi Chitrapat Mahamandal, Kolhapur, so also appointed various artists
and technicians. The informant also appointed present applicant as Director
and on 01st December, 2016 filming of the movie commenced.
3. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that 90% work of the production of film
was over and for remaining 10% and for other technical things as well as for
some pre-release promotion, the informant was in financial difficulty, and
therefore, was in search of a financier. Since the said fact was known to the
applicant, on 22nd April, 2017 he made a telephonic call to the informant and
informed that Sagar Shelke and Mayur Madane / co-accused had shown their
willingness to invest in the film and were ready to meet at Osmanabad.
Accordingly, the informant had communicated that meeting can be arranged
on 23rd April, 2017 at his office at Osmanabad. In the said meeting in which
the applicant, Sagar Shelke and Mayur Madane were present, so also one
Prakash Kadam, Shahaji Rathod and Rahul Munjale. Discussion then took
place on the proposal submitted and it was agreed that the amount of Rs.30
Lakhs would be transferred in the bank account of 'Real History Film
Production', Osmanabad, which was maintained with IDBI Bank. It was
further agreed that towards return for the investment of said amount, those
two persons i.e. Sagar Shelke and Mayur Madane would be shown as co-
2 / 12
901-APPLN-2179-19.odt
producers of the film and would further be paid 10% of the profit earned.
The informant alleged that inspite of the same, the aforesaid amount was not
credited in his bank account and still the present applicant by hatching
conspiracy with Sagar Shelke, Umesh Raut, Mitu Shinde and Ankush Rathod,
released the official teaser of the film on 11 th January, 2019 on social media
platform/ YouTube. In the said teaser, Respondent No. 2 could notice that
the present applicant had shown his production house i.e. "Creative Mind
Film" of the film 'Dandam'. At that time Respondent No.2 found himself to be
cheated at the hands of accused persons named in the F.I.R.
4. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that though he had invested amount of
Rs. 60 lakhs in the production of said film, the present applicant showed that
it was under his production house film was produced and also shown Sagar
Shelke, Umesh Raut and Shinde as co-producers of the film. According to the
informant, by doing so all the accused persons had caused wrongful financial
loss to the informant and wrongful gain to themselves. Likewise, by selling the
rights of the aforesaid film, financial gain was made. He further alleged that
the original hard disc containing the film was unauthorizedly kept by the
applicant with himself. He thus submitted that by changing the name of
production house and ignoring the fact that Respondent No. 2 had invested
amount of Rs. 60 Lakhs, he was cheated. It was further alleged in the F.I.R.
that he had reposed the trust in the applicant, and therefore, had entrusted
3 / 12
901-APPLN-2179-19.odt
the applicant with the hard disc, but by committing criminal breach of trust,
in order to gain wrongful financial benefit to himself, financial loss was
caused to Respondent No.2. He then produced the relevant documents along
with compact disc containing videw uploaded on YouTube to the police and
requested for carrying out the investigation. It is in this background, the F.I.R.
was lodged and the investigation triggered. Completion of investigation
resulted in filing of final report dated 20 th November 2020 for the commission
of offences mentioned hereinabove.
5. The applicant during pendency of proceedings amended the
application and challenged registration of charge-sheet, so also order dated
25th November 2020 taking cognizance by the C.J.M., Osmanabad. Learned
counsel for the applicant contended that perusal of F.I.R. would reveal that
even if contents therein are taken to be true, no man of ordinary prudence
would arrive at the conclusion that applicant has committed ant offence.
According to him, the FIR has a civil flavour and it is only with a view to
recover the amount, the recourse to the criminal law was taken. He further
submitted that if documents on record are perused, it would be crystal clear
that the present applicant had also invested in the film, and therefore, the
question of cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery as well as criminal
conspiracy will not arise. He further contended that Commercial IP Suit (L)
No. 1127 of 2019 was filed by the Respondent No.2 against The Chairman of
4 / 12
901-APPLN-2179-19.odt
Central Board of Film Certification and others including the present applicant
before the High Court at Bombay and on 11th November 2019 notices were
issued. He submitted that interim application was not pressed by present
Respondent No. 2, since the applicant herein made a statement that in the
credit titles of the film, as and when the film is released, defendant (present
applicant) shall acknowledge that the film was first registered by plaintiff
(Responder No. 2). The plaintiff's name had already been shown as co-
producer of the film in the title and that would be continued. The said
statement made then was accepted. According to him, the said suit is still
pending before the concerned Court. He submitted that the grievance of
Respondent No.2 regarding financial loss can very well be taken recourse to in
the civil suit.
6. Per Contra learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submitted
that if the contents of final report are taken into consideration, it would be
crystal clear that the case is not simply based upon the civil or criminal
prosecution, but shows inspite of investing huge amount of Rs.60 lakhs, he
was not given due credit by showing his name as the Producer. He submitted
that non-crediting the amount of Rs.30 lakhs by the co-accused in the account
of the production house of Respondent No.2 further shows that there was
systematic hatching of criminal conspiracy. He, therefore, requested for
dismissal of the application.
5 / 12
901-APPLN-2179-19.odt
7. Learned A.P.P. has contended that this is not a simple case of
cheating, but Respondent No.2 had entrusted the original hard disc of the film
with the applicant and by releasing the teaser, criminal breach was committed
by the applicant. He submitted that in the said background, even the
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court has refused to quash the F.I.R. in
the case of M/s Shreshth Movies and Anr. Vs. State of Telangana and Anr. In
Crl.P. No. 10427 and 10429 of 2017 dated 05 th January, 2018. Learned
A.P.P. further contended that the law is crystal clear that civil and criminal
prosecution can continue at the same time.
8. With the assistance of respective Counsels I have gone through the
record of the case.
9. It is not disputed by Respondent No. 2 that there is no agreement
to show that the present Respondent No. 2 had entrusted the hard disc of the
original contents of the film and it was obligatory on the part of the applicant
not to release the movie. In this regard learned Counsel for Respondent No.2
has invited my attention to agreement dated 02 nd May 2017 between Sagar
Shelke and Mayur Madane on one hand and Respondent No. 2 and applicant
on the other hand, which is part of charge-sheet. According to him, if the said
agreement is perused, more particularly clause (1), it would be crystal clear
that Respondent No.2 had decided to produce a movie under the name
6 / 12
901-APPLN-2179-19.odt
'Dandam' and for that necessary registration of "Real History Films
Production" was done with the Akhil Bhartiya Marathi Chitrapat
Mahamandal, Kolhapur. He contended that the agreement further shows that
the applicant is the Director of the film and till execution of agreement 60%
work of the filming was done. The agreement, according to him, further
shows that till execution of agreement, entire expenses for the production of
film were incurred by Respondent No.2. He, therefore, submits that the said
material in enough to connect the applicant with the crime.
10. At this stage it is necessary to mention here that clause (2) of the
aforesaid agreement demonstrates that the applicant and Respondent no.2 till
the date of execution of agreement have invested huge amount for the
production of film, but due to some financial difficulties they had asked Sagar
Shelke and Mayur Madane regarding financial help, which they have agreed
to render. The agreement shows that the amount of Rs.30 lakhs is given by
way of cheque in the name of Real History Films Production. The receipt of
cheque was shown to have been acknowledged. The cheque number and
details to that effect are kept blank in the agreement. The agreement also
stipulates some conditions about completion of 40% of work in three months
and returning of the said amount by the applicant and Respondent No.2 to
said Sagar Shelke and Mayur Madane. It is mentioned that 10% of the profit
would be given by the applicant and Respondent No.2 to them. It is also
7 / 12
901-APPLN-2179-19.odt
mentioned in the agreement that before taking any decision regarding film by
applicant and Respondent No.2, the idea to that effect will have to be given
by the applicant and Respondent No.2 to Sagar Shelke and Mayur Madane.
The agreement further shows that at the time of releasing of film, either Sagar
Shelke and Mayur Madane or any other person proposed by them would be
shown as co-producer of the film.
11. Thus, it is crystal clear that the aforesaid agreement shows that
even the present applicant had invested huge amount in production of said
film. The contention of Respondent No.2 that amount of Rs.30 lakhs was not
credited in the bank account of production house will have to be decided in
this background. The main contention of Respondent No.2 that his name was
not shown as co-producer will also have to be decided in the background of
the agreement as well as the Commercial Civil Suit which is filed on record.
12. At this stage what is required to be seen is whether fraudulent
intention was developed by the applicant at the initial stage to cheat the
Respondent No.2 or not. It is the undisputed position that there was financial
difficulty for completion of remaining work and for that amount was tried to
secure. It is the present applicant, who had also invested the amount in the
film production which is clear from agreement. Thus it can be said that the
applicant as well as Respondent No.2 were somehow similarly situated. The
8 / 12
901-APPLN-2179-19.odt
question, therefore, is whether the applicant would have been benefited from
dishonoring the agreement stated above. Law in this regard is crystal clear
that once the agreement is entered into between the parties, rights and
liabilities would be decided on the basis of agreement itself. Giving criminal
colour to the prosecution which is predominantly of civil nature is not
permissible in the eyes of law.
13. So far as contention of learned A.P.P. that civil and criminal
prosecution can go simultaneously is not in dispute at all. The question is
whether the offences are made out or not. I could not find any document
which would show that offence under Section 468 of the I.P.C. is committed
by the present applicant. In fact, neither Respondent No.2 nor learned A.P.P.
could show me how the offence of forgery for the purpose of cheating was
made. It can not be ignored that it was not the applicant who had promised
to pay amount of Rs.30,00,000/-.
14. At this stage, learned A.P.P. has relied upon the law laid down by
this Court in case of Vheejay Tukaram Lole and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
and Ors., 2023 (3) AIR Bom.R (Cri.) 573 , more particularly paragraph nos. 15
and 16, which read thus :-
"15. No doubt, the petitioners have claimed to have invested an
amount of Rs.28.31.559/- towards subsidy, in the Fixed Deposit,
however, the fact remains that the said amount cannot be termed
9 / 12
901-APPLN-2179-19.odt
as an amount to which the petitioner is himself entitled.
Petitioners have failed to produce the arbitration award before this
Court for perusal so as to appreciate his contentions as to existence
of contractual agreement between the petitioners and respondent
no.2. The findings recorded by the arbitrator since are not made
available for the perusal of this Court, this Court is not able to
appreciate the same. As far as reliance placed by the petitioners on
the judgment of Mitesh Kumar Sha (supra), no doubt the Apex
Court has in categorical terms observed in case of existence of
contractual or civil dispute. remedy of criminal prosecution is not
available. The fact remains that if we appreciate the observations
of the Apex Court in para 28 of the said Judgment, we can prima
facie infer dishonest intention of the petitioners from the conduct
of showing investment of Rs.1,65,00,000/- as against the
documents viz. Certificate of his own Architect which speaks of his
investment of Rs.1,03,59,575/- only. The petitioner has made
respondent no.2 to believe that his investment is of
Rs.1,65,00,000/- as against the actual investment of
Rs.1.03,59,575/- and made respondent no.2 to invest an amount
of Rs.45 lakhs in producing the Film. This act of the petitioners
sufficiently satisfies ingredients of Section 406 and 420 of the IPC.
As such, the judgment in the matter of Mitesh Kumar Sha (Supra),
will be of hardly any assistance to the petitioners.
16. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Gulam Mustafa v. State of
Karnataka and Another reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 603 had
an occasion to reiterate the law in relation to exercise of powers
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C for the purpose of quashing of the
offence. The Apex Court has reiterated that power of quashing the
criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The Apex
Court has further observed that it is not open for this Court to
embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint.
Extraordinary or inherent powers are not conferring any arbitrary
jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.
The allegations made in the FIR cannot be termed as absurd or
inherently improbable. Rather, material brought on record depicts
10 / 12
901-APPLN-2179-19.odt
that FIR contains justifiable allegations which can be borne out of
record. Apart from above, it cannot be inferred from the aforesaid
factual matrix and reasons recorded that proceedings are initiated
so as to harass the Petitioner or Respondent No.2 can be termed as
a vindictive litigant."
15. His main contention is that though there was civil dispute, on that
ground only proceedings can not be quashed. As already stated, there cannot
be second opinion regarding aforesaid proposition. The question is whether
there was a fraudulent intention at initial stage. In the aforesaid case, it
would be crystal clear from the paragraph no.2 that the applicants therein,
who were husband and wife, were the proprietors of 'Vijay Datta Films' and
had directed and produced a Marathi movie by investing an amount of
Rs.1,65,00,000/-. As they were short of funds for marketing and screening of
the film, they approached Respondent No.2/complainant therein for financial
assistance. Respondent No.2 therein though invested an amount of Rs.45
lakhs and became the co-producer of the said film, the film thereafter released
and failed to achieve profits as expected. In that case, the petitioners therein
had failed to repay the principal amount of Rs.45 lakhs and share of profit, as
promised and in that background, the prosecution was allowed to be
continued. As already stated, in the present case the applicant is also the
Director of film, what would be his remuneration is not brought on record.
Per contra, the agreement shows that the applicant has also invested huge
amount, which clearly shows that the present applicant can also be said to be
one of the sufferer of loss caused. Since the applicant is also sufferer of
11 / 12
901-APPLN-2179-19.odt
financial loss, I find no merit in the contention that the present applicant was
developing any fraudulent intention from initial stage. Further theory of
criminal conspiracy advanced is also not supported by any material brought
on record.
16. In that view of the matter, since the dispute between the parties is
clearly of commercial nature, I am inclined to allow the present application.
Hence, the following order :-
ORDER
(I) Criminal application is allowed.
(II) F.I.R. No. 160 of 2019 dated 09th June, 2019 registered
with Anandnagar Police Station, Dist. Osmanabad for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 417, 468, 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and consequent charge- sheet no. 151 of 2020, proceeding bearing R.C.C. No. 322 of 2025 and order taking cognizance dated 25th November, 2020 passed by the Court of C.J.M., Osmanabad are hereby quashed, so far as present applicant is concerned.
(III) Needless to mention that the observation are of prima facie in nature and will not affect the outcome of the criminal proceeding pending against the co-accused.
( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. ) SSD 12 / 12