IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.285 OF 2023 RAMESHWAR BHARAT KEDAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER Mr. Dhananjay Shinde h/f Mr. A. A. Phad, Advocate for the Petitioner Ms. R. P. Gour, APP for the Respondent/State Mr. N. C. Garud and Mr. A. A. Mundhe, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. The Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of FIR bearing Crime No. 601/2022 in respect of offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 & 471 of Indian Penal Code, the charge-sheet filed pursuant to the FIR, and the order issuing summons against him. 2. Briefly, the prosecution's case is that the Informant, who is the wife of the Petitioner, approached the police alleging that the Petitioner had obtained her bank statements in respect of accounts mentioned therein by forging her signature without her consent and these bank statements were subsequently wp285.23.odt 1 of 10 2026:BHC-AUG:42694-DB produced and relied upon in the proceedings before the Family Court. These bank statements bore bogus stamp and signature of Bank Authorities. 3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent- wife made false claim before Family Court with regard to the being unemployed and having no income and the Petitioner has placed correct facts before the Court of law and as such there cannot be said to be dishonest intention of Petitioner in obtaining the said documents to bring fresh on record. According to him, even if it is assumed that the Petitioner obtained the bank statements of Respondent, merely obtaining such statements would not constitute any criminal offence. He further argued that for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code to be established, there must be a fraudulent or dishonest act by deceiving any person resulting in wrongful gain to one person and wrongful loss to another. He argued that, in the present case, the Respondent has not been deceived nor any loss is caused to her or to the Bank, neither Petitioner obtained any wrongful gain. He further submitted that the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation do not show that the Petitioner himself fabricated any document or signature. Therefore, according to the Petitioner, no prima facie offence is made out against him. wp285.23.odt 2 of 10 4. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1999 SCC(Crl) 426. He also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mariam Fasihuddin And Anr. Vs. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr., 2024 AIR(SC) 801, in which the FIR was quashed in a case involving an allegation that the wife had obtained a passport of the child by allegedly fabricating the husband's signature. He also relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Sandip Sahebrao Agre Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another in Criminal Application No. 1647 of 2018, decided on 07.09.2018, to argue that merely alleging cheating is not sufficient unless the necessary wrongful loss or wrongful gain is established. He further argued that the opinion of the handwriting expert was not conclusive and, therefore, such evidence could not by itself justify putting the Petitioner through a criminal trial. 5. The learned APP and the learned Advocate appearing for the Informant opposed the petition. They submitted that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner that he fabricated the signature of the Informant and used it for obtaining her bank statements. According to them, the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation indicate that the Petitioner obtained the bank statements by using the forged signature of the Informant, wp285.23.odt 3 of 10 even though he was not otherwise entitled to obtain those statements. They therefore argued that there is sufficient material on record prima facie to show an offence is made out against the Petitioner to make him face the criminal trial. 6. There is no dispute that the bank accounts concerned were individually held by the Informant. It is also an admitted fact that the Petitioner produced those bank statements before the Family Court in the maintenance proceedings filed by the Informant. There is further evidence to show that these statements of accounts were obtained by Petitioner. The FIR contains specific allegations that the signature of the Informant was fabricated and that the stamp and seal appearing on the bank statements did not belong to the concerned bank. Statements of witnesses recorded during the investigation indicate that the bank statements were obtained on the basis of a requisition submitted by the Petitioner. In case of another Bank, it was stated by the concerned bank employee that the Petitioner took away a printout of the bank statement and that the employee had neither stamped nor signed that statement. Though the Petitioner claims that the stamp and signature appearing on the statement belonged to an employee of another branch. The statement of witness does not support the said claim. In any case this becomes defence of the Petitioner, which he would entitled to raise before Trial Court. wp285.23.odt 4 of 10 Since, there are disputed questions of fact regarding the genuineness of the signatures, stamps and bank statements and regarding the manner in which the documents were obtained, these issues cannot be decided by the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such factual issues are matters to be considered and decided by the Trial Court after examining the evidence recorded before it. 7. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner argued that the essential ingredients required to constitute offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code are not satisfied in the present case. It would be relevant to take note of the said provisions which read thus:- “(i) 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property:- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. (ii) 465. Punishment for forgery.— Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. (iii) 468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.— Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. (iv) 471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic wp285.23.odt 5 of 10 record-Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.” 8. Alongwith above provisions it is also necessary to understand the meaning of terms such as dishonest/fraudulent intention, wrongful loss and wrongful gain in order to determine whether at the initial stage, any offence is made out against the Petitioner. In order to make out offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, there must be dishonest intention to induce the person deceived to deliver any property to any person or a valuable security or anything signed and sealed and capable of being converted into a valuable security. Thus, three different situations are contemplated therein i.e. (i) delivery of any property or (ii) valuable security or (iii) anything signed or sealed, which is capable of converting into valuable security and delivery of any one of them. On deception would be enough to make out offence of cheating. 9. Section 415 of IPC defines cheating and any person who by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person to deliver any property to any person. . Section 2(25) explains from dishonestly – Doing something with wp285.23.odt 6 of 10 intention to cause wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another. . ‘Wrongful gain’ as per Section 2(23) – means unlawful means of property to which the person is not legally entitled. 10. The word dishonest in the context of offence under I.P.C., is an act with an intention to cause ‘wrongful gain’. The wrongful gain is not gain in terms of money only but also to get some thing/property which the person is not legally entitled. So also causing of wrongful gain to one and wrongful loss to another is not contemplated in the Section 415 of IPC, as it states about wrongful gain to one or wrongful loss to another. It must be coupled with inducement and delivery of property. 11. Coming back to the facts of the case, the Petitioner was not otherwise entitled to receive/obtain the bank statements relating to the account exclusively and individually held by the Respondent. Therefore, by allegedly using the forged signature of his wife, the Petitioner obtained the bank statements to which he was not entitled. Irrespective of the fact whether it is a wrongful loss to Respondent or Bank it amounts to wrongful gain to the Petitioner. The Petitioner by inducing bank employee on the basis of fabricated signature of wife has obtained wrongfully Bank statements which wp285.23.odt 7 of 10 he was not entitled to receive. The Court therefore does not countenance the argument of the Petitioner that he had not obtained any wrongful gain. Moreover the statements of employees of Banks apparently support the case of prosecution of fabrication of signature and seal on the Bank statements. Thus, the offence of forgery for cheating is also made out against the Petitioner. 12. With regard to the judgment in Mariam Fasihuddin and Another (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that, in that case, there was no sufficient prima facie material to establish that the appellant had prepared the false document by forging the signature of Respondent No. 2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also noted that the proceedings against the passport officer had already been quashed and, therefore, there was no useful purpose in continuing the prosecution against the appellant. Since the facts of that case were different from the facts involved in the instant case, the said judgment would not apply to the case in hand. Similarly, in Sandip Sahebrao Agre (supra), Division Bench of this Court had mainly considered the unexplained and excessive delay in lodging the report. In that case also, the Court found that there was no intention on the part of the applicant to cheat the Informant. wp285.23.odt 8 of 10 13. Suffice it to say that the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during the investigation sufficiently demonstrate, at the prima facie stage, that there is fabrication of the bank records and forgery of the signature of the Respondent for the purpose of obtaining her bank statements and that the stamps and signature therein are fabricated/forged. Once prima facie material on record indicates attraction of penal offences against the Petitioner, this Court is not permitted to quash the proceedings. The defence, if any, of the Petitioner can be considered only in the Trial. Moreover, this cannot be called as vindictive or malicious prosecution, having regard to prima facie material on record. Thus, the principles laid down in case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal (supra) have no application to the present case. 14. Another important aspect that is required to be considered by this Court is that if such conduct by a person like the Petitioner is accepted and granted approval by the Court, it would lead to encourage unscrupulous people to obtain the bank statements of anyone by forging their signatures. This Court finds that the Petitioner had a remedy available to him to seek the said bank statements. If he required the bank statements of the Respondent for the Family Court proceedings, he could have sought appropriate direction for production of those documents from the Court. However, instead of following that legal procedure, the Petitioner obtained the bank statements by using the wp285.23.odt 9 of 10 forged signature of the Respondent so also fabricated/forged record. Therefore, this is not a fit case to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction of the Court to quash the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the Criminal Writ Petition stands dismissed. 15. At this stage, learned Advocate for the Petitioner seeks continuation of interim relief for a period of eight (08) weeks. 16. Learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 submits that four weeks stay would be sufficient. 17. There is stay granted by this Court for the reason to enable the parties mediation. The same is extended for a period of six (06) weeks from today. 18. It is clarified that the above observations are prima facie in nature and won’t bind parties as well as Trial Court during Trial. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp wp285.23.odt 10 of 10