Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
Sh. Ajit S/o. Shirish Korde, (DEAD) – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer – Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 609 of 2015 With Criminal Writ Petition No. 631 of 2015
Decided On : 23-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fir alleges cheating in delayed bank guarantee invocation (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. parties argue civil dispute vs fraudulent post-validity invocation (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. quash fir for civil nature or process abuse (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. unconditional bank guarantees for contract performance security (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. bank guarantees autonomous; payable on demand absent fraud (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 6. invocation valid within period despite initial closure (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 7. parties settled contract dispute concealing from fir (Para 48 , 49) |
| 8. no mens rea for cheating or breach of trust; civil dispute (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69) |
| 9. quash fir; impose costs for abusing process (Para 70 , 71) |
JUDGMENT :
URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
1. These Writ Petitions are filed for seeking appropriate directions for quashing and setting aside the impugned First Information Report (for short “FIR”) in connection with Crime No.262/2015 registered with Police Station Ranapratap Nagar, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 403, 406, 418, 425, 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).
2. The Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 609/2015 are the Senior Bank Officials of Bank of India, Nagpur, whereas the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 631/2015 are the officials of BGR Energy Systems Limited. During pendency of these Writ Petitions the Petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No. 609/2015 who at the relevant time was Zonal Manager of Bank of India is reported to be dead. Petitioner No.2 was posted as a Senior Manager of Bank of India, Pratapnagar Branch Nagpur. The Respondent No.2/Yogesh Dnyaneshwar Nagpure is the partner of “Aaradhya Infotech Pvt. Ltd.” was engaged in the business of supplying of construction material under the name and style as “M/s. Aradhya Engineers & Constructions, Nagpur” since 2011. Subsequently the said partnership firm converted into company as “Aradhya Infratech Pvt. Ltd.”
3. Said Yogesh Nagpure lodged a report against the Petitioners by approaching to Pratapnagar Police Station alleging that his firm received a civil work in relation to power plant of Chandrapur for CW Channel, forebay, pump house and ESP control room building. From the BGR Energy Systems Limited, the firm of the Complainant received service orders by the said BGR Energy Systems Limited for two contracts. As per the terms of the contract, the Complainant was required to furnish bank guarantees to the extent of 10% of the contract value. For carrying out the aforesaid construction four bank guarantees were executed and furnish to BGR Energy Systems Limited, for an amount of Rs. 81,37,822/-. The Complainant has obtained financial assistance from Bank Of India by mortgaging his fathers property. Thus, for execution of the Service Orders issued by BGR Energy Systems Limited, in the year 2011 and the actual construction work was as per the contention of the Complainant belated for want of copies of map.
4. As per the allegation of the Complainant, his firm had furnished bank guarantees for a specific period. On the expiry of the said period, the bank guarantees is to be extended up to 30.09.2012. The BGR Energy Systems Limited, terminated the contract by communication dated 17.11.2012. The validity of the bank guarantee was to expire on 30.09.2012. The Complainant intimated the Bank by communication dated 26.09.2012 not to extend the bank guarantee beyond 30.09.2012. On 30.09.2012, the extension period of bank guarantees was expired. On 04.10.2012, the communication was received by the Bank from the firm of the Complainant M/s Aradhya Infratech Pvt. Ltd., to close all the bank guarantees since his firm has not received any communication from BGR Energy Systems Limited for its extension. On 09.10.2012, by inter of
FIR quashed where bank guarantee invocation during validity constitutes civil commercial dispute sans mens rea for cheating/breach of trust; complainant suppressed settlement, abusing process without....
The court upheld the dismissal of discharge applications under Section 239, CrPC, confirming the existence of prima facie evidence for charges of criminal misappropriation and cheating against the ac....
The court affirmed that criminal proceedings cannot be used as leverage in civil disputes, emphasizing the need for proof of dishonest intent and necessary ingredients for offences claimed. Lack of v....
Loan account adjustment disputes are civil, not criminal under cheating or breach of trust; requires dishonest intent from inception or entrustment, absent here; cannot invoke criminal process for ci....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
