2026:BHC-NAG:595-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.98 OF 2020

1. Kishor Parashram Nikhar, Aged 56, Occupation : Service.

2. Neena Kishor Nikhar, Aged About 46 years, Occupation : Business.

Both applicants R/o Mahadeopalace, Behind Wadgaon Police Chowki, Chandrapur, Distt. Chandrapur. : APPLICANTS ...VERSUS...

1. State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station Pawani, Dist. Bhandara.

2. Tomeshwar Vitthal Panchbai, Aged About - 45 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Yenoda, Tq. Pawani &

District Bhandara. : RESPONDENTS =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for Applicants.

Ms. Shamsi Haider, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1.

Mr. B.M. Kharkate, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 11 ^th NOVEMBER, 2025.

PRONOUNCED ON : 14 ^th JANUARY, 2026.

JUDGMENT : (Per : Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.)

1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for by the applicants for quashing of First Information Report dated 11.9.2019 bearing Crime No.271/2019, registered by the non-applicant No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 407, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the First Information Report lodged by the respondent No.2, he being the owner of Saraswati Devi Rice Processing Industries, Panchbhai Agro Industries and Vitthalrao Rice Mill was having commercial relations with the applicants. The respondent No.2 is dealing in the business of processing raw rise and selling it thereafter through the agents. It is further stated in the First Information Report that the first informant i.e. respondent No.2 supplied processed rise to the applicants to the extent of Rs.52,07,005/- and the applicants had paid an amount of Rs.40,79,250/- and thus an amount of Rs.11,27,755/- was outstanding against the applicants. Even though, the respondent No.2 demanded the balance amount from the applicants from time to time, the applicants refused to pay for the one reason or the other. This prompted the respondent No.2 to lodge a First Information Report with the respondent No.1 for offences of breach of trust etc. The said First information Report is challenged in the present application.

4. We have heard Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the applicants, Ms. Shamsi Haider, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 and Mr. B.M. Kharkate, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

5. Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the applicants by taking us through the First Information Report in question submits that even if the entire allegations in the First Information Report are presumed to be true, even then no offence much less as punishable under various sections as mentioned in the First Information Report are made out. He submits that this is only a civil transaction which has been malafidely given the colour of criminality and under the said guise, the respondent No.2 wants to recover the money. He further submits that there is no entrustment of property to attract offence under Section 406. He, therefore, prays for quashing of the First Information Report in question.

6. Per contra, Ms. Shamsi Haider, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that a meaningful reading of the First Information Report would reveal that the offences as punishable under Sections 407, 420 and 506 are squarely made out. He further submits that during the investigation various documents which are received pertaining to the supply of the processed rice have been seized and there are statements of the complainant as well as his agent evidencing that rice was in fact was supplied.

7. Mr. B.M. Kharkate, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 while supporting learned Additional Public Prosecutor submi