Abhinav Anand Khare vs State Of Maharashtra Through The Investgation Officer Wakad Police Station
- Court
- Bombay High Court
21-WP-3286-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3286 OF 2026
1. Dr. Abhinav Anand Khare
Age 38 years, Occupation Doctor,
Address at Flat No. 901,
Prabhatam Heights, Raisen Road,
Bhopal – 462 022
…Petitioner
Versus
1.
State of Maharashtra,
Through the Investigation Officer,
Wakad Police Station,
Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune.
[Summons to be served on the
Learned Public Prosecutor,
High Court (Criminal Side) Mumbai
appearing for State of Maharashtra
under the provisions of the Section 25
of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973]
2.
Shashikant Eknath Shinde
Age 68 years, Occupation Retired,
Residing at Marvel Cascade,
B-701, Balewadi,
Pune – 411045.
...Respondents
-------
Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh a/w Irvin Dsouza, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vaibhav Jagtap a/w Chinmay Godse, for the Respondent No. 2.
Mrs. Anuja Gotad, APP for the Respondent – State.
API P. G. Gajjewar, Wakad Police Station, is present.
-------
Arjun 1
21-WP-3286-2026.doc
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
th
DATE : 9 July, 2026.
Oral Judgement :
1. Heard Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the
Petitioner, Mrs. Anuja Gotad, learned APP for the Respondent –
State and Mr. Vaibhav Jagtap, learned Advocate for the
Respondent No. 2.
2. The Petitioner, by this Petition filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeks to quash the FIR
dated 30.01.2025, bearing No. 50 of 2025, registered with Wakad
Police Station, Pimpri Chinchwad, District Pune, for offences
punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“impugned FIR”).
3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of the
parties, this Petition heard finally.
4. The impugned FIR is registered on the basis of the complaint
filed by the Respondent No. 2 (Retired Government Servant),
Arjun 2
21-WP-3286-2026.doc
alleging that the Petitioner induced him to part with his hard-
earned money, with a promise/assurance of high returns, in
respect of a partnership pertaining to a Hospital. Based on the
promises made by the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 2 was lured
into parting with Rs.1,37,50,000/-. The said amount was neither
returned by the Petitioner nor was the promise made by the
Petitioner at the time of receipt honored.
5. Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the Petitioner,
submits that the challenge to the impugned FIR is two-fold,
namely (i) that the allegations in the impugned FIR relate to a civil
dispute and therefore criminal proceedings on the very same set of
allegations are not maintainable; and (ii) that the impugned FIR
itself indicates that the subject matter is of a civil nature. Mr.
Sugandh Deshmukh, relying on the Partnership Deed dated
21.10.2022 (at Exhibit -B, pages 27 to 35 of the Petition paper
book), submits that if Respondent No. 2 is aggrieved by the non-
return of Rs. 1,37,50,000/- by the Petitioner, Respondent No. 2 is
entitled to file a civil suit for recovery of the amount based on the
Partnership Deed dated 21.10.2022. He therefore requests the
Arjun 3
21-WP-3286-2026.doc
quashing of the impugned FIR.
6.
Ms. Anuja Gotad, learned APP for the Respondent – State,
submits that the impugned FIR discloses a clear case of
inducement by the Petitioner, by which the Respondent No. 2 was
induced to part with Rs. 1,37,50,000/- on assurances of substantial
returns or a 50% partnership in the hospital. She submits that the
Petitioner has misappropriated the said amount and duped the
Respondent No. 2. She further submits that the Partnership deed
dated 21.10.2022, relied upon by the Petitioner in this Petition, is
a sham and has been created by the Petitioner to further his
dishonest intent.
7. Mr. Vaibhav Jagtap, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2,
submits that the Petitioner took full advantage of Respondent No.
2, a retired Government Servant, and with dishonest intentions
lured him into parting with his savings on the promise of high
returns. He further submits that the Petitioner has taken advantage
of the gullible Respondent No. 2, cheated him of his hard-earned
money, and dishonestly misappropriated the said sum. He submits
that the Petitioner neither returned the amount of Rs.
Arjun 4
21-WP-3286-2026.doc
1,37,50,000/- received from Respondent No. 2 nor fulfilled his
promise to enter into a partnership in the Hospital and to give
returns.
8. Perused the records with the assistance of the learned
Advocates. The competing contentions now fall for consideration.
9. A perusal of the impugned FIR reveals that Respondent No. 2
was induced by the Petitioner to part with Rs. 1,37,50,000/- on
the promise of high returns and a partnership in the Hospital. The
impugned FIR also sets out allegations that the Petitioner had
dishonest intentions at the inception. The impugned FIR details
the systematic manner in which the Petitioner planned to defraud
Respondent No. 2 and succeeded. Prima facie, the impugned FIR
discloses the element of criminality.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of in the case of S.
1
N. Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka , has considered whether
civil and criminal proceedings can be maintained on the same set
of allegations against the same person. In paragraph No. 42, it
1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1575
Arjun 5
21-WP-3286-2026.doc
observed as follows:
“42. Coming to the second question i.e., whether
civil and criminal proceedings both can be maintained
on the very same set of allegations qua the same
person(s), the answer stricto sensu, is that there is no
bar to simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings . If
the element of criminality is there, a civil case can co-
exist with a criminal case on the same facts. The fact
that a civil remedy has already been availed of by a
complainant, ipso facto, is not sufficient ground to
quash an FIR, as pointed out, inter alia, in P
Swaroopa Rani v. M Hari Narayana, (2008) 5 SCC
765 and Syed Aksari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State
(Delhi Admn.), (2009) 5 SCC 528. The obvious caveat
being that the allegations, even if having a civil
flavour to them, must prima facie disclose an
overwhelming element of criminality. In the absence
of the element of criminality, if both civil and criminal
cases are allowed to continue, it will definitely
amount to abuse of the process of the Court, which
the Courts have always tried to prevent by putting a
stop to any such criminal proceeding, where civil
proceedings have already been instituted with regard
to the same issue, and the element of criminality is
absent. If such element is absent, the prosecution in
question would have to be quashed. In this
connection, Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand,
(2013) 11 SCC 673 can be referred to:
‘12. … Whether a complaint discloses a criminal
offence or not depends upon the nature of facts
alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of
criminal offence are present or not has to be judged
by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil
transactions may also have a criminal texture. But
the High Court must see whether a dispute which is
essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of
criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil
remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has
happened in this case, the High Court should not
hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to
prevent abuse of process of the court.’
Arjun 6
21-WP-3286-2026.doc
(emphasis supplied).
11. Petitioner has produced a document at Exhibit -B (pages 27
to 35 of the Petition paper book) captioned “Partnership Deed
dated 21.10.2022”. Referring to the said document as a
“Partnership Deed”, Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh, learned Advocate for
the Petitioner, submitted that if Respondent No. 2 is aggrieved by
the non-return/refund of the amount of Rs. 1,37,50,000/- by the
Petitioner, the Respondent No. 2 is entitled to maintain a civil suit
based on the said Partnership Deed to recover the amount. Thus,
according to Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh, the dispute referred to in
the impugned FIR is recovery of money.
12. In view of the unremitting submissions of Mr. Sugandh
Deshmukh, based on the Partnership Deed, that the subject matter
of the impugned FIR would be civil in nature, I have perused the
said document, “Partnership Deed dated 21.10.2022”, for a limited
purpose . The said document, which is claimed to be a Partnership
Deed, is neither registered nor has the Petitioner claimed that the
persons referred to in the Partnership Deed dated 21.10.2022 are
shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm, as required
Arjun 7
21-WP-3286-2026.doc
under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Reliance on the said
document by the Petitioner would indicate that the Petitioner's
intentions are not bona fide.
13. In addition to the criminality attached to the allegations in
the impugned FIR, Ms. Anuja Gotad, learned APP, would be
justified in her submission that the Partnership Deed dated
21.10.2022 is a smokescreen, created by the Petitioner with
dishonest intent.
14.
The averments made in the impugned FIR, taken at face
value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The
ingredients of cheating as charged against the Petitioner are made
out, thereby warranting no interference in this Petition.
15. Mrs. Anuja Gotad, learned APP for the Respondent – State,
was at pains to submit that Respondent No. 2, a retired
Government Servant, was duped by the Petitioner and that the
ingredients of the offences against the Petitioner are made out.
Accordingly, she insists on the imposition of exemplary costs on
the Petitioner for filing this Petition, which she contends amounts
Arjun 8
21-WP-3286-2026.doc
to an abuse of the process of law. Mr. Vaibhav Jagtap states that
Respondent No. 2, after being duped, is forced to face this
litigation, resulting in financial loss and harassment, and therefore
he seeks costs from the Petitioner. Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh,
learned Advocate for the Petitioner, persuades me against
imposing costs.
16. In view of the above, this Petition is devoid of merit and is
dismissed. Rule discharged.
17.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Digitally
signed by
ARJUN
KRISHNA
RODGE
Date:
2026.07.13
20:40:47
+0530
ARJUN
KRISHNA
RODGE
Arjun 9