2026:BHC-NAG:1787-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1121 OF 2025 Nandkishor s/o Panjabrao Gawarkar, aged: 61 years, occupation: private security agency, proprietor of M/s.Abhijeet Intelligence Security & Labour Services, r/o plot No.07, Abhay Nagar, Omkar Nagar Chowk, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur. ….. Applicant.

:: V E R S U S ::

1. State of Maharashtra, through Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nagpur.

2. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station : Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur.

3. Pradip s/o Balakdas Meshram, aged: 38 years, occupation: not known, r/o Shankarpur, tahsil Chimur, district Chandrapur. ….. Non-applicants.

==============================

Shri J.M.Gandhi, Counsel for the applicant.

Shri N.B.Jawade, APP for the State.

==============================

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

CLOSED ON : 19/01/2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 02/02/2026 JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel Shri J.M.Gandhi for the applicant and learned APP Shri N.B.Jawade for the State.

Admit. Heard finally by consent.

2. By this application, the applicant seeks quashing of the FIR in connection with Crime No.0003/2025 registered for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the P.C.Act).

3. The applicant is working in the field of providing Intelligence Security as well as Labour Services in the name and style as “M/s.Abhijeet Intelligence Security and Labour Supplier” having its office at F/4, MIG Colony, Tukdoji Square, Manewada Road, Nagpur. The applicant participated into the tender process floated by various departments in the State of Maharashtra and submitted his bids and various other Tenderers also submitted their bids and whoever he is found eligible and beneficial, he provides services as per requirement of the Government or the Semi Government Organizations subject to terms and conditions duly agreed between parties. He does not fall at all within category of “public servant” as provided under Section 2(28) of the BNS, 2023 as well as under Section 2 of the P.C.Act.

4. The crime was registered against him on the basis a report lodged by the non-applicant No.3 (the complainant) on allegations that the applicant has demanded amount Rs.25,000/- from him for appointing him as “Sweeper.” Therefore, the complainant approached the Office of the Anti Corruption Bureau at Nagpur (the bureau). After verification panchanama, a raid was conducted and the applicant was found accepting amount Rs.35,000/- from the complainant. After following a due process, he was arrested by registering the crime against him. On the basis of the said report, the police registered the crime against the applicant.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as far as allegations against the applicant are concerned, the same are false and baseless. He submitted that the applicant is not a “public servant” within the meaning of Section 2(28) of the BNS and under 2 of the P.C.Act. Therefore, the provisions of the P.C.Act are not applicable against him. He is working on contractual basis and, therefore, person working on contractual basis is not within the category of “public servant” and on this count alone, the entire process adopted by the investigating agency deserves to be vitiated and the FIR is liable to be quashed and set aside.

6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on following decision:

1. Union Public Service Commission vs. Girish Jayantilal Vaghela and ors, reported in (2006)2 SCC 482; and

2. Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.17711- 17713 of 2019 (Municipal Council, Rep.by its Commissioner Nandyal Municipality, Kurnool District, A.P. vs. K.Jayaram and ors, etc.)

decided by the Supreme Court in 16.12.2025.

7. Per contra, learned APP for the State strongly opposed the said contentions and submitted that services rendered by the applicant come within the definition of “public servant” defined under Section 2 of the P.C.Act. He specifically placed reliance