1 27-J-APL-148-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 148 OF 2023 APPLICANT : Vishnu @ Vishnudas Jaishriram Chaware, Aged about : 48 years, Occ. Photo Grapher, R/o. Gajanan Nagar, Dabki Road, Akola, Tah. & Distt. Akola. V E R S U S RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, City Kotwati, Akola, Tah. & Distt. Akola. 2. Omprakash Mohanlal Zunjunwala, Aged about 77 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Pankaj Building, Near Vidyavihar Hostel Shastri Nagar, Akola, Tah. & Distt. Akola, At present R/o Mahendra Agrawal & Dr. Priti Mahendra Agrawal, Shishak Sahakari Bank, Rahul Apartment, Flat No.3, Nandanwan, Nagpur – 440009. 3. Dr. Mahendra Narayandas Agrawal, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Business, R/o Avaya India Pvt. Ltd., Level-5, Tower-XI, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, Pune 411 013. AND R/o F-1, 102 Jasmenium, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, Pune 411 013. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Mandar Deshpande, Advocate h/f Shri S. M. Awachar, Advocate for applicant. Shri A. M. Joshi, Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant No.1. Shri A. S. Manohar, Advocate for non-applicant Nos.2 and 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATED : 02/02/2026. 2026:BHC-NAG:1839-DB 2 27-J-APL-148-2023.doc ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. By this application, applicant is seeking for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with Crime No.415/2021 and the consequent proceeding arising out of the same Charge Sheet No.82/2021 bearing RCC No.1439/2021. 3. A crime is registered on the basis of report lodged by non-applicant No.2 alleging that his father-in-law runs a Photo Studio at Gandhi Road, Akola and the present applicant was working in his shop. It is alleged that some cheques he had kept by signing on it in a studio and present applicant has suppressed the fact of the said cheque and misused the said cheques. On the basis of said report, police have registered a crime against present applicant. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. Perused the entire investigation papers. It reveals from the record that one Omprakash Mohanlal Junjunwala has already informed the bank 3 27-J-APL-148-2023.doc regarding the theft of cheque and therefore, payment of cheque was stopped. The communication of the Bank Manager to the Investigating Officer shows about the communication dated 13/08/2021. The another communication to the Branch Manager, Tajnapeth Branch also discloses that the father-in-law of the complainant Omprakash Mohanlal Junjunwala was taking treatment for brain tumor at the relevant time and he was absent and was unable to run his business and the present applicant was working along with him. The suspicion was raised against the present applicant. Thus, considering the prima facie material against the present applicant, I have shown my disinclination to entertain the application. 5. Learned APP and learned counsel for the complainant have also strongly opposed the application for quashing the First Information Report. On going through the entire investigation papers, the prima facie material is available against the present applicant. 6. In view of the parameters of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, wherein following principles / guidelines are laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court for consideration of the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 4 27-J-APL-148-2023.doc “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 7. In view of that, the application deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order :- 5 27-J-APL-148-2023.doc ORDER i] The application is rejected. ii] The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the said observations while conducting the trial. The observations are prima facie in nature. (JUDGE) Choulwar