IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6286 OF 2024 Dr. Shireesh Gupte … Petitioner V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents ------

Mr. Aseem Naphade a/w Mr. A.P. Singh i/b A.P. Singh & Co. for the Petitioner.

Mrs. P.P. Shinde, Addl. P.P. for the Respondent No.1-State.

Mr. Siddarth Jha a/w Mr. Pritesh Burad, Mr. Shreyas Moharir i/b Mr.

Pritesh Burad Associates for the Respondent No.2.

Mr. S.K. Lahane, Asst. Police Inspector, Naupada Police Station, Thane City. ------

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &

SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 28^th NOVEMBER 2025 P.C.

1) Although, the Respondent No.1-State of Maharashtra has been served and learned Counsel for the Petitioner has an acknowledgment to that effect, Mrs. Shinde, Addl. P.P., makes a grievance that she has not been served a copy of the Petition. Mr. Aseem Naphade, assures to serve a copy of the Petition on the learned Addl. P.P., to enable her to take instructions.

2) Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

3) By this Petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the F.I.R. registered vide C.R. No.0033 of 2022, with Naupada Police Station, Thane, for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

4) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the subject F.I.R. pertains to the products sold by the Respondent No.2 to the Petitioner, way back in 2010 to 2014. He submits that full payments could not be made to the Respondent No.2, in view of lab report received by the Petitioner that the goods supplied by the Respondent No.2, were not fit for human consumption and were sub-standard. He further submits that the Respondent No.2 has filed a Civil Suit, and has lodged the aforesaid F.I.R., after almost after 8 years, i.e. on 2^nd February 2022, alleging the aforesaid offences. He submits that considering the delay in lodging the F.I.R., no preliminary inquiry as mandated, has been done by the Police. He further submits that taking the prosecution’s case as it stands, no offence, either under Section 406 or 420, is disclosed qua the Petitioner He further submits that the Petitioner intends to come to India and co- operate with the investigation and submit documents to the concerned Investigating Officer to show that dispute is civil in nature and there is no element of criminality in the same.

5) Mr. Siddarth Jha, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2, states that although it is claimed that the goods were of sub-standard quality, the goods were never returned to the Respondent No.2. He states that the dispute is of a criminal nature and the Police have rightly registered the F.I.R. against the Petitioner.

6) Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, having perused the F.I.R. and keeping in mind the nature of transaction between the parties, we direct the Police to continue with the investigation, however, not to file a chargesheet till the next date, without the leave of this Court. Since the Petitioner intends to come to India and join the investigation, we direct the Police not to take any coercive steps qua the Petitioner to enable him to appear before the Investigating Officer, Naupada Police Station, Thane, in the aforesaid C.R. No.0033 of 2022. We are also informed that Lookout Circular (LOC), has been issued at the behest of Naupada Police Station against the Petitioner. The said LOC issued at the behest of Naupada Police Station, Thane, shall stand stayed, till the next date.

7) The Petitioner to join the investigation on 20^th December, 2025. Before the Petitioner departs from Austria to India, we direct the Police to inform the Petitioner of all such documents, that they wish to go through which are in possession of the Petitioner. It is also open for the Respondent No.1 to seek the said information from the Petitioner through Video Conferencing.

8) Stand over to 23^rd December 2025.

(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

RAJESH RAJESH VASANT VASANT CHITTEWAN