5-REVN-52-2026 (CR) Draft1(4).doc N.S.Kamble IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION. NO. 52 OF 2026 Kedar Prakash Vanjape ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ____________________________________________________________ Mr. Sandesh More a/w Mr. Hitendra Gandhi, Mr. Om Gandhi, Mr. Akash Sawale, for the Applicant. Mr. K.L. Vyas, SPP a/w Mr. S.S. Hiray, PP and Mr. B.B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State. Mr. Asaram Shete, PI a/w Mr. Khobragade, ASI, EOW, Pune City. ____________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. : . The challenge in this Application is to the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, Pune rejecting Discharge Application of the Applicant. 2. It is prosecution’s case that the Applicant and co-accused lured investors to deposit money in their company with an assurance of handsome returns on it. After depositing the amount, they neither gave the promised returns on the invested amount nor returned the money. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that in the year 2002, the Applicant joined D.S. Kulkarni Developers Ltd. NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Digitally signed by NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Date: 2026.09.28 18:05:29 +0530 5-REVN-52-2026 (CR) Draft1(4).doc N.S.Kamble (‘DSKDL’ for short) and worked in various capacities. In August 2009, the Applicant resigned from all positions and severed connections with the DSKDL group. In the year 2010 and onwards, the alleged offences of collection of public deposits and misappropriation of funds surfaced long after his resignation from service. The learned counsel further submitted that Shri. D.S. Kulkarni and his family raised Fixed deposits in the name of his family-owned company and the Applicant was never a part of any of these family firms. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that on 28th October 2017, FIR was registered against Shri. D.S. Kulkarni and co-accused. The Applicant’s name was added in the present crime on the basis of supplementary charge-sheet. After registration of offence, the investigation was extended to certain land transactions at Fursungi, Pune which was alleged to have caused wrongful loss to the shareholders of DSKDL and illegal gain to Shri. D.S. Kulkarni and his relatives including the wife of the Applicant. 5. The learned counsel further submitted that the main allegations against the Applicant are that wife of Applicant - Saee Vanjape, who is niece of Shri. D.S. Kulkarni, had purchased land at Fursungi from farmers. Later, she sold the said land to DSKDL at a huge price within few months of 5-REVN-52-2026 (CR) Draft1(4).doc N.S.Kamble purchasing it. At that time, the Applicant was Vice President of DSKDL. The learned counsel further submitted that the Applicant has no connection with the said land transactions, as it was purchased by the resolution of Directors of DSKDL and the Applicant was merely an employee of DSKDL. 6. The learned counsel further submitted that on the basis of the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Agencies, Ministry of Corporate Affairs had appointed Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). The said authority has conducted the investigation of present offence and has given a clean chit to the aforesaid transactions and treated it as legal. The learned counsel further submitted that the investigation of Fursungi land deal was carried out by the Investigating Officer without any complaint or statement by the shareholders. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no case at all against the Applicant, but these facts have not been considered by learned Sessions Judge and has passed impugned order, which is erroneous and requested to allow the Application. 7. It is contention of learned SPP that the present Revision Application is not maintainable as an Appeal should have been filed against the order of MPID Court. The learned SPP further submitted that plots of land were purchased by the Applicant at Fursungi as an authorized signatory to DSKDL company. The learned SPP further submitted that the Applicant 5-REVN-52-2026 (CR) Draft1(4).doc N.S.Kamble held various positions in DSKDL. The wife of Applicant had purchased land at Fursungi from the farmers and the said land was sold to DSKDL at higher prices within seven months of the said transaction. During the relevant period, the Applicant was Vice-President and Executive Director of DSKDL. 8. The learned SPP further submitted that there are statements of witnesses Ms. Gauri Patil and Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi which show involvement of the Applicant in the present crime. They have stated that the Applicant was present in the meeting with Shri. D.S. Kulkarni. The learned SPP further submitted that statements of witnesses Mr. Amol Rakhvi, Ms. Chaitali Dharmadhikari and Mr. Madhukar Waikar have been recorded. They have stated that they had invested the amount in DSKDL in the year 2008, when the Applicant was working in the said company. There is prima facie case against the Applicant and the Applicant can put forth his defense at the time of trial. The learned Sessions Judge has passed a well-reasoned order, no interference is required in it and requested to reject the Application. He relied on Neelam Rajendra Nanaware V/s. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal No.350 of 2025. 9. Heard rival submissions. Perused impugned order and documents produced on record. Page 4 of 8 5-REVN-52-2026 (CR) Draft1(4).doc N.S.Kamble 10. Admittedly, the Applicant had resigned from DSKDL in the year 2009. The main allegations against the Applicant are that his wife Saee had purchased land at Fursungi from farmers and sold it to DSKDL at a higher price within seven months of purchasing the said land. At that time, the Applicant was working as Vice President of the Engineering Department (DSKDL). The wife of the Applicant is the niece of main accused Shri. D.S. Kulkarni. In my view, the land was purchased by DSKDL. It was the decision of the Board of Directors of the said company. The Applicant cannot be held responsible for the said transaction and cannot be considered as a conspirator, as he was merely a salaried employee of DSKDL. Moreover, the wife of the Applicant has been arraigned as an Accused in the present crime. The wife’s relationship with the main accused cannot, by itself, create criminal liability on the part of the Applicant. Criminal liability is personal in nature and cannot be imposed merely on the basis of marriage, relationship, or past employment, in the absence of material establishing the Applicant’s involvement in the commission of the offence. In respect of allegations of cheating the investors, it appears from the statement of witness Ms. Gauri Patil that there was a dispute between the Applicant and Mrs. Hemanti Kulkarni in the year 2009, due to which the Applicant left his job. She has stated that in January 2010, she was called to the office of Shri. D.S. 5-REVN-52-2026 (CR) Draft1(4).doc N.S.Kamble Kulkarni by the co-accused and directed to accept money deposits from the people. She further stated that in November 2013, to evade the legal hassles of SEBI and RBI’S restrictive conditions, it was decided that deposits be accepted from the investors in a newly planned manner. Statement of this witness shows that DSKDL and other companies started accepting the deposits from the investors from January-2010. At that time, the Applicant was not working in the said company, so it cannot be said that the Applicant was part of the conspiracy or was aware about the acceptance of said deposits. The statement of Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi and Ms. Gauri Patil shows that when they visited the house of Shri. D.S. Kulkarni, the Applicant was present. In my view, mere presence of the Applicant at the house of his employer cannot be a ground to involve him in the present crime. The statement of Mr. Amol Rakhvi shows that he had invested the amount in office of DSKDL at their Mumbai office and re-invested it in year 2011 after a talk with Shri. Deepak Kulkarni. So, there is no concern of the present Applicant. 11. As observed earlier, the Applicant had resigned from DSKDL in the year 2009. The deposits were accepted from the people in the year 2010 when the Applicant was no longer an employee of DSKDL. His wife has been arraigned as an accused in the present crime for alleged land 5-REVN-52-2026 (CR) Draft1(4).doc N.S.Kamble transactions. There is no case at all made out against the Applicant, but these facts have not been considered by the learned Sessions Judge. 12. It is contention of the learned SPP that the present Application is not maintainable. In my view, as the Applicant had resigned from DSKDL before accepting the deposits from investors. He was a salaried employee of DSKDL. Moreover, there are no specific allegations against the Applicant about using the deposited amount. Therefore, provisions of MPID Act would not be applicable against the Applicant. Hence, present Application is maintainable. Continuing the case against the Applicant would amount to an abuse of process of law. 13. I have gone through the case laws cited by the learned SPP. The facts of cited case and the present case are different, hence, not applicable. 14. In view of above, I pass following order. ORDER (i) The Application is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 29th October 2025 passed in MPID Special Case No.874 of 2022 is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The Applicant is discharged from the charges levelled under Section 120-B, 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 109 5-REVN-52-2026 (CR) Draft1(4).doc N.S.Kamble read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments), Act, 1999. (iv) All pending Applications are disposed of. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)