20. CRI WP-747-12.odt Amberkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 747 OF 2012 Varada Kamlakar Badbade .. Petitioner (Org. Accused No. 2) Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ....................  Dr. Uday P. Warunjikar a/w Ms. Isha K. Hajare i/by Ms. Sonali Chavan, Advocates for Petitioner  Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for State ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 21, 2026 P. C. : 1. Heard Dr. Warunjikar, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for State. 2. Petitioner is arraigned as accused No. 2 in RCC No. 2931/2009 pending before the learned JMFC No. 1 at Pune arising out of C.R. No. 50/2009 registered with Samartha Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 409 read with 34 of IPC and Section 32(b) of Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946. Accused No. 1 is Kamlakar Badbade who is the husband of Petitioner. However, prima facie record rather admitted facts placed on record show that accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been separated by decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 17.02.2010. 1 of 5 20. CRI WP-747-12.odt 3. What is intriguing are the dates in the present matter. Petition for divorce was filed in 2008 and it is the contention of Petitioner that since 2004 they were staying separately. While considering the case of the Petitioner and the statements of nearly hundred investors recorded during the course of investigation, it is seen that the complainant as well as the investors have stated that they had seen the Petitioner, i.e. Accused No.2 at the office of her former husband when they had visited the said office in connection with investment proposal. They have further stated that the Petitioner had herself requested them to make investments. Save and except this statement, there is nothing concrete brought on record by the prosecution even today when the present Petition is heard to challenge the rejection of discharge by the learned Sessions Court to show complicity of the Petitioner in the crime or the proceeds of the crime. 4. The learned APP would vehemently contend that, while considering the rejection of the Discharge Application, the learned Sessions Court has duly considered and noted that the statements of nearly 100 investors were recorded during the course of investigation, some of whom have stated that the Petitioner was very much present and had requested them to invest their amounts. It is submitted that the aforesaid material has been considered by the learned Sessions 2 of 5 20. CRI WP-747-12.odt Court to be sufficient material to proceed against the Petitioner and to continue with the indictment against her. 5. It is seen from the record that the Proprietorship Firm in which the investors made their investment belonged to accused No. 1 Kamlakar Badbade and was in his name. When a very pointed question is asked to the learned APP to show the complicity of Petitioner in the present crime by any investigative material unearthed by the prosecution post investigation, learned APP in his usual fair mindedness has answered in negative. 6. Dr. Warunjikar would draw my attention to the charge-sheet and submit that, upon a specific query as to whether the prosecution has placed on record any material demonstrating the complicity of the Petitioner in having received any amount, either directly from the investors or from her husband, in connection with the alleged diversion and / or siphoning of funds, the answer thereto is in the negative. In fact Dr. Warunjikar goes to the extent of stating that there is not a single word to that extent reflected in the chargesheet which has been filed. Merely on the basis of a strong suspicion unsupported by any prima facie material demonstrating that the Petitioner was a beneficiary of any amount received by the Investment Company of Accused No.1 and having regard to the admitted position that the Petitioner had separated from her husband during the relevant period 3 of 5 20. CRI WP-747-12.odt when the investments were made, the benefit thereof, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, must necessarily enure to the Petitioner. 7. In view of the aforesaid observations and findings which emanate from the record, I am in complete disagreement with the findings returned in the judgment dated 16.07.2011 by learned Sessions Court while rendering and returning the findings to the contrary as delineated herein above. When there is no specific and direct involvement of Petitioner or she having received the proceeds of crime, it would not be possible for the Court to continue with her indictment any further. 8. Record also shows that accused No. 1 has also settled by refunding the amount of few of the investors. That itself shows that indictment of Petitioner any further merely on the basis that she was the wife of accused No. 1 and that she was spotted at the office or her presence was there in the office of accused No. 1 during the years prior to 2009 cannot be the sole ground for continuing her as accused in the present matter. 9. Admittedly, it is borne out from the record that the Petitioner was, at the relevant time, having two minor children. It is further an admitted position that, since 2004, she had been residing separately 4 of 5 20. CRI WP-747-12.odt from her husband; in 2008, she instituted a petition seeking divorce, and ultimately, in 2010, a decree of divorce by mutual consent came to be passed. These circumstances, taken cumulatively, clearly enure to the benefit of the Petitioner. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment dated 19.07.2011 is not sustainable and therefore quashed and set aside. Resultantly Cri. Revision Application No. 85/2010 stands allowed. 10. In consequence of the above, Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (d) which reads thus:- "(c) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any direction or order in the nature of writ of certiorari and thereby be pleased to quash the proceedings in R.C.C. No. 2931/2009 pending on the file of Ld. Sessions Court, Pune,; (d) that the impugned Orders dated 04/02/2010 passed by the Ld. J.M.F.C No. I, Pune in R.C.C. No. 2931/2009 and Order dated 16/07/2011 passed by the Ld. Sessions Court, Pune, in Criminal Revision Application No.85/2011 be quashed and set aside." 11. Petition is allowed and disposed. Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 5 of 5 RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Digitally signed by RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Date: 2026.08.21 20:17:15 +0530