SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Bom) 991

2026 BHC(NAG) 6335
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH : NAGPUR
VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
Dr. Sameer S/o Balswarup Chaubey - Appellant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Sitabuldi, Nagpur City, Nagpur and Others - Respondent
Criminal Application (APL) No.246 of 2026
Decided On : 20-04-2026
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr. S.V. Manohar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aadil Anwar J. Mirza and Mr. Masood Shareef, Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr. K.R. Lule, A.P.P., Mr. Nipan Katyal with Mr. Parth Ranade, Advocate

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.V. Manohar, Aadil Anwar J. Mirza, Masood Shareef
For the Respondents: K.R. Lule, Nipan Katyal, Parth Ranade

A mere breach of contract, characterized by a pending civil dispute between landlord and tenant, cannot be converted into a criminal prosecution for cheating or breach of trust unless fraudulent intention at the inception is clearly established, as the criminal process cannot be used for oblique motives.

Headnote:The proceedings arise from a dispute over a commercial lease and licence agreement for operating a pharmacy within a hospital setup. The applicant seeks to quash the F.I.R. registered under Sections 420, 406, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, on the grounds that the dispute is civil in nature. The court finds that an active civil suit for ejectment and recovery is already pending, and the criminal complaint constitutes an abuse of process intended for arm-twisting. The core issue is whether a breach of contract, where no fraudulent intention existed at the inception of the transaction, justifies criminal prosecution. The court observes that criminal proceedings cannot be weaponized to settle civil scores, particularly when contractual terms govern the relationship. Relying on settled precedents, the court determines that the elements of cheating and criminal breach of trust are not met, as the primary dispute is a landlord-tenant issue pending adjudication before a civil court. The application is allowed, and the F.I.R. is quashed subject to the applicant depositing costs of Rs.25,000/- with the specified public welfare account within two weeks.

Table of Content
1. court's legal reasoning for quashing fir due to civil primacy. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)

JUDGMENT :

MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.

By way of present application, the applicant is invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the F.I.R. No.0068/2026, registered by the non-applicant No.1, for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”).

2. On the complaint lodged by Sameer Sawwalakhe, the crime is registered. It is alleged that when the complainant came to know that the applicant Dr. Choubey was in need of money he met the applicant Dr. Choubey and gave the proposal of setting up a pharmacy shop in his hospital. Since the applicant’s hospital was famous, the complainant was sure that there would be a good business. The Complainant considered establishing a pharmacy but since the applicant demanded Rs.5 Crores and as he could not provide that amount alone, the complainant asked some of his friends and they were assured that the hospital would achieve the business of around Rs.60 to 90 Lakhs per month. The complainant along with Sachin Madke, Varun Kumar and Deepak Singh invested the said amount of Rs.5 Crores and they agreed to invest the same in pharmacy at Asian Kidney Hospital and Research Center, Nagpur of the applicant.

3. On 21.6.2019 a financial MoU was signed between Dr. Choubey and the complainant and his friends deciding to give Rs.5 Crores as a deposit to applicant. Out of this amount 50% was non- refundable and 50% was to be refunded when the pharmacy is to be closed. From 18.6.2019 to 14.11.2019 total amount of Rs.5,14,45,000/- was given in cash, cheques and RTGS. Out of this, Rs.14,45,000/- has been lent to the applicant. The MoU contained the term that Dr. Choubey will provide his shop with a minimum monthly drug sales business of Rs.60 Lakhs to Rs.90 Lakhs. This MoU will be valid for 7 years. 18 percent of drug sales business will be given to Dr Choubey. Dr. Choubey had promised to set an I.C.U. and other departments in his hospital in December 2019 but even after 3 to 4 years of the agreement, the I.C.U. and other departments were not started. As per the agreement, it was decided that Dr. Choubey would not start any other pharmacy in his hospital or allow others to start one.

4. Despite above mentioned conditions in the MoU signed between the applicant and the complainant, Dr. Choubey started another pharmacy in the hospital premises due to which the complainant and his partners suffered significant financial losses. The agreement predicted that sales would reach at least Rs.60 Lakhs to Rs.90 Lakhs per month but this target had not reached till the date of filing of the F.I.R. The complainant spoke to the applicant. The applicant had started another pharmacy at the same location which affected the sale of the pharmacy of complainant and daily transaction money was not received. Therefore, as the complainant and his friends were running the pharmacy at a loss, they had no option but to close it.

5. The premises leased/licenced as per the MoU dated 21.6.2019 inter alia provides that the non-applicant No.3 had agreed to deposit Rs.5 Crores as a security deposit and out of which Rs.2 Crores 50 Lakhs were refundable and Rs.2 Crores 50 Lakhs were not refundable. Further the non-applicant No.3 agreed to pay the monetary benefits equivalent to 18% of net sales per month to the applicant. At the time of agreement it was represented by the non- applicant No.3 to the applicant that the monthly sales of the pharmacy of non-applicant No.3 initially would be between Rs.45 Lakhs to Rs.60 Lakhs. It was represented that after six months, the sales would rise upto Rs.60 Lakhs to Rs.90 Lakhs per month.

6. It is argued by the learned Advocate for the applicant that the non-applicant No.3 represented to the applicant that he shall specifically provide best quality pharmaceuticals services vis-a-vis the medicine and equipments in strict

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top