SACHIN S/O CHANDRAMANI WANKHADE vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. PSO, POLICE STATION MURTIZAPUR, DIST. AKOLA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-NAG:4062-DB
Judgment
apl1482.25
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL NO.1482 OF 2025
Sachin s/o Chandramani
Wankhede, aged about 38 years,
occupation: Advocate, r/o Malani
Complex, Murtizapur, district
Akola. ….. Applicant.
:: V E R S U S ::
1. State of Maharashtra,
through the Police Station
Officer, Police Station,
Murtizapur, district Akola.
2. Anti Corruption Bureau, Akola.
3. Rajesh Ramdasji Kambe,
age: 60, occupation: Dentist,
r/o in front of HDFC Bank, Main
Road, Murtizapur, district Akola. ….. Non-applicants.
================================
Shri Parvez Mirza, for Applicant.
Mrs.M.A.Barabde, APP for NA No.1/State.
Shri M.Hussain, Counsel for NA No.3.
================================
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
RESERVED ON : 23/02/2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 10/03/2026
JUDGMENT
.....2/-

Judgment
apl1482.25
2
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties. Admit. Heard finally by consent.
2. By this application, the present applicant is seeking
quashing of FIR in connection with Crime No.29/2018
registered with non-applicant No.1 police station for offences
under Sections 7, 12, and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (the P.C.Act) and consequent proceedings arising
out of the same bearing Final Report No.111/2023 and ACB
Case No.128/2023 pending before learned Special Court,
District Judge-III, Akola.
3. Brief facts for disposal of the application are as under:
The crime is registered on the basis of a report
lodged by ACB Officer Ishwar D.Chauhan on allegations
that original complainant Rajesh Ramdasji Kambe
approached the ACB Officer and filed a complaint that his
son was arrested in connection with Crime No.1/2018
under Section 376 of the IPC and he was taken into the
.....3/-

Judgment
apl1482.25
3
police custody. For providing him good facilities in jail, co-
accused Deepak Tayde, through the present applicant,
demanded amount initially Rs.5.00 lacs and after
negotiation, Rs.1,25,000/-. After receipt of the complaint,
the ACB Officer called two panchas. In presence of
panchas, original complainant Rajesh Kambe disclosed his
grievance. Thereafter, verification panchanama was drawn.
During communication between said original complainant
Rajesh Ramdasji Kambe and the present applicant, the
present applicant has disclosed that for providing better
facilities to his son, the amount is to be given to the police
officer and Police Officer Deepak Tayde has demanded
amount. During verification panchanama, it revealed that
the present applicant has demanded amount for Police
Officers Gaikwad and Deepak Tayde and thereby the
present applicant has committed the offence of “abetment”
as well as offence under Section 7 of the P.C.Act by
demanding gratification amount for public servant.
.....4/-

Judgment
apl1482.25
4
On the basis of the said report, the police have
registered the crime against the present applicant.
During the investigation, the investigating officer
has recorded relevant statements of witnesses, obtained
“Voice Sample” of the present applicant as well as other co-
accused and forwarded the same for analysis. A proposal
for sanction has already been proposed and after
completion of the investigation, he submitted chargesheet
against the present applicant as well as the co-accused.
4. During pendency of this application, a settlement
took place between original complainant Rajesh Kambe
and the present applicant and the said original complainant
filed an affidavit to that effect.
5.
The present application is filed on two grounds:
First ground is that, there is a settlement between
original complainant Rajesh Kambe and the present
applicant.
.....5/-

Judgment
apl1482.25
5
In view of that, the FIR deserves to be quashed.
Second ground is that, Sections 7, 12, and 15 of the
P.C.Act are not attracted against the present applicant.
It is contended that in view of Section 7 of the New
Act, i.e. the P.C.Act, 1988, requirement is that any public
servant who obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from
any person, an undue advantage, with an intention to
perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or
dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform
such duty either by himself or by another person and,
therefore, the present applicant is not “public servant” and,
therefore, Section 7 of the P.C.Act is not attracted.
Similarly, Section 12 of the P.C.Act is for
“punishment for abetment of offences” and Section 15 of
the P.C.Act is for “punishment for attempt” to commit
offence clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13, which
.....6/-

Judgment
apl1482.25
6
are also not attracted and, therefore, the FIR deserves to be
quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the present applicant submitted
that Section 7 of the P.C.Act is substituted by way of an
amendment which came into effect on 26.7.2018.
Whereas, the alleged incident is prior to the said
amendment.
The FIR in the present case is lodged on 29.1.2018
and, therefore, Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 is not applicable in the present case.
He submitted that the present applicant is neither a
“public servant” nor there is an attempt to accept the
gratification amount or any undue advantage from any
person as a reward for improper or dishonest performance
of a public duty.
He invited my attention towards Section 7 of the
P.C.Act and submitted that the said Section deals with
.....7/-

Judgment
apl1482.25
7
circumstances that pubic servant taking gratification other
than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. It
states that whoever, being, or expecting to be a public
servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts
to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other
person, any gratification whatever, other than legal
remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or
forbearing to do any official act or for showing or
forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions,
favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or
attempting to render any service or disservice to any person
is said to have committed offence punishable under Section
7 of the P.C.Act.
He submitted that Section 12 of the P.C.Act deals
with “punishment for abetment of offence”. The said
Section is reproduced for reference as under:
“12. Punishment for abetment of offences.
.....8/-

Judgment
apl1482.25
8
Whoever abets any offence punishable under this Act,
whether or not that offence is committed in
consequence of that abetment, shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less
than three years, but which may extend to seven years
and shall also be liable to fine.”
He submitted that the said Section is also
substituted by way of amendment which came into effect
from 26.7.2018 and, therefore, this Section is also not
applicable to the present applicant.
Section 15 of the P.C.Act deals with “punishment for
attempt”. The said Section is also not attracted against the
present applicant.
7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
applicant has placed reliance on following decisions:
1. K.R.Ramesh vs. CBI, reported in Kerala High
Court vs. 2020 SCC OnLine Kerala 2529; and
2. Shivaji Dattatraya Davbhat vs. The State of
Maharashtra, reported in 2022 ALL MR (Cri) 283.
.....9/-

Judgment
apl1482.25
9
8.
Per contra, learned APP for the State strongly
opposed the said contentions and submitted that old
Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deals with
public servant taking gratification other than legal
remuneration in respect of an official act and Section 8
takes care of corrupt practice by any person. She
submitted that even if it is accepted that that wrong
Section is applied by the investigating agency, the court has
every right to sift material and apply proper Section while
framing of charge.
She submitted that communication of the present
applicant with the original complainant squarely covers
aspect of “abetment”. Old Section 12 of the PC Act, 1988,
prior to amendment, also deals with aspect that whoever
abets any offence punishable under Section 7 of Section 11
whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of
that abetment, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
.....10/-

Judgment
apl1482.25
10
term which shall be not less than six months but which
may extent to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
She submitted that thus, irrespective of the
commission of the offence, if any person abets any offence
under Section 7 or 11, the act is punishable under Section
12 of the P.C.Act and, therefore, the offence under Section
8 as well as offence under Section 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988
is made out.
She submitted that the Voice Sample obtained of the
applicant was analyzed during the analysis and the report
received from analyst shows that it matches. Therefore, a
prima facie case is made out against the present applicant.
In view of that, the application deserves to be
rejected.
9. After hearing both sides, it reveals that the crime is
registered on the basis of information received by the ACB
Officer from original complainant Rajesh Kambe that his
.....11/-

Judgment
apl1482.25
11
son is arrested in connection with Crime No.1/2018 under
Section 376 of the IPC and he was taken into the police
custody. For providing him good facilities in jail, Police
Officers Deepak Tayde and Gaikwad, through the present
applicant, demanded gratification amount to the tune of
Rs.1.00 lacs to Rs.1,25,000/-.
10. Needless to mention that the present applicant is
Advocate by profession and was representing son of the
original complainant before the trial court. The
investigating agency, on the basis of the complaint lodged
by the original complainant, verified the same by drawing
verification panchanama. During the verification
panchanama, the communication of the present applicant
and the original complainant was recorded. From the said
communication, it is crystal clear that the communication is
in the nature of giving gratification amount to the police
officer for providing better facilities to the son of the
original complainant. The verification panchanama shows
.....12/-

Judgment
apl1482.25
12
that the present applicant has attempted to convince the
original complainant for payment of money. The relevant
communication, is reproduced as under:
“ oku[kMs odhy % tkow n;k Eg.ks ex rks vlk Eg.ksy dh
rqeps ,dgh lksMk Eg.ks eh ek>s ,d rhl gh lksMrks tkow n;k
Eg.ks ,d ohl nsowu Vkdtk Eg.ks vkrk eg dkghp ukgh
cksyr Eg.ks 14-20 vl dsya- ”
“ rla R;kauk iq.kZ gkrkr vkiY;kyk n;kop ykxrs rs dl vkgs
rs fMikVZesaV vkrk gs iUUkkl ?ksrhy rs dks.kkys nsrhy rs
”
lkgsckauk nsrhy dh Lor% Bsorhy dh] vk; vks uka nsrhy-
11. Thus, from the verification panchanama, it reveals
that the present applicant, who was representing the son of
the original complainant as defence counsel in the trial,
had communicated the original complainant as to the
demand of the investigating officer for providing better
facilities to his son. Thereafter, Voice Sample of the
applicant was obtained and Voice Sample panchanama is
on record. The Voice Sample Report specifically shows
that, “the auditory analysis of the recorded questioned
.....13/-

Judgment
apl1482.25
13
voice exhibits of speaker marked Ex-1/11, Ex-4/1, and the
specimen voice exhibit of speaker marked Exh-7/1 and
subsequent spectrographic analysis revealed that, the
questioned voice exhibits of speaker Ex-1/1, Exh-4/1
matches with the specimen voice exhibit of speaker marked
Ex-7/1, (said to Mr.Sachin Chandramani Wankhade), i.e.
the present applicant.”
12.
Thus, not only the verification panchanama but also
the Voice Sample collected and analyzed matches with the
voice recorded during the communication with the Voice
Sample of the present applicant.
13. The original complainant has specifically alleged
that it was the present applicant who has communicated
him regarding the demand of the investigating officer who
was investigating the crime. The communication between
the present applicant and the original complainant also
substantiates the same.
.....14/-

Judgment
apl1482.25
14
14.
Firstly, I would like to advert issue regarding the
settlement between the original complainant and the
present applicant.
15. The original complainant has filed his reply on
record wherein he contended that in a hit of moment,
under confusion, he has lodged the report against the
present applicant as “abettor”. Due to misunderstanding
and misconception, he has named the present applicant as
accused in the complaint and, therefore, he has no
objection to quash the FIR.
16. It is to be seen that, whether FIR lodged alleging the
offence under the P.C.Act can be quashed on the basis of
compromise.
17.
The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of The State of
Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and ors, reported in
(2019)5 SCC 688, by referring earlier decisions in the cases
of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2012)10
.....15/-

Judgment
apl1482.25
15
SCC 303 and Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported
in (2014)6 SCC 466, observed that, “the offences alleged to
have been committed under special statute like the
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by
public servants while working in that capacity are not to be
quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the
victim and the offender.”
It has been further observed that, “the power
conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences
under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having
overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or
arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes
and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute
amongst themselves.”
.....16/-

Judgment
apl1482.25
16
It is specifically observed that, “similarly, such power
is not to be exercised for the offences under the special
statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that
capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of
compromise between the victim and the offender.”
18. Here, t he observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of The State of Chhattisgarh vs. Aman Kumar
Singh and ors, reported in AIR 2023 SC 1414 are relevant
wherein in paragraph No.49 it is observed as under:
“49. We preface our discussion, leading to the
answers to the above two questions, taking note
of a dangerous and disquieting trend that
obviously disturbs us without end. Though it is
the preambular promise of the Constitution to
secure social justice to the people of India by
striving to achieve equal distribution of wealth,
it is yet a distant dream. If not the main, one of
the more prominent hurdles for achieving
progress in this field is undoubtedly ‘corruption’.
Corruption is a malaise, the presence of which is
all pervading in every walk of life. It is not now
limited to the spheres of activities of
.....17/-

Judgment
apl1482.25
17
governance; regrettably, responsible citizens say
it has become a way of one’s life. Indeed, it is a
matter of disgrace for the entire community that
not only on the one hand is there a steady
decline in steadfastly pursuing the lofty ideals
which the founding fathers of our Constitution
had in mind, degradation of moral values in
society is rapidly on the rise on the other. Not
much debate is required to trace the root of
corruption. ‘Greed’, regarded in Hinduism as
one of the seven sins, has been overpowering in
its impact. In fact, unsatiated greed for wealth
has facilitated corruption to develop like cancer.
If the corrupt succeed in duping the law
enforcers, their success erodes even the fear of
getting caught. They tend to bask under a hubris
that rules and regulations are for humbler
mortals and not them. To get caught, for them,
is a sin. Little wonder, outbreak of scams is
commonly noticed. What is more distressing is
the investigations/inquiries that follow. More
often than not, these are botched and assume
the proportion of bigger scams than the scams
themselves. However, should this state of affairs
be allowed to continue? Tracking down corrupt
public servants and punishing them
appropriately is the mandate of the P.C.Act. “We
the people”, with the adoption of our
Constitution, had expected very high standards
from people occupying positions of trust and
responsibility in line with the Constitutional
.....18/-

Judgment
apl1482.25
18
ethos and values. Regrettably, that has not been
possible because, inter alia, a small section of
individuals inducted in public service for
‘serving the public’ appear to have kept private
interest above anything else and, in the process,
amassed wealth not proportionate to their
known sources of income at the cost of the
nation. Although an appropriate legislation is in
place to prevent the cancer of corruption from
growing and developing, wherefor maximum
punishment by way of imprisonment for ten
years is stipulated, curbing it in adequate
measure, much less eradicating it, is not only
elusive but unthinkable in present times. Since
there exists no magic wand as in fairy tales, a
swish of which could wipe out greed, the
Constitutional Courts owe a duty to the people
of the nation to show zero tolerance to
corruption and come down heavily against the
perpetrators of the crime while at the same time
saving those innocent public servants, who
unfortunately get entangled by men of dubious
conduct acting from behind the screen with
ulterior motives and/or to achieve vested
interests. The task, no doubt, is onerous but
every effort ought to be made to achieve it by
sifting the grain from the chaff. We leave the
discussion here with the fervent hope of better
times in future.”
.....19/-

Judgment
apl1482.25
19
19.
Thus, in the light of the observations of the Hon’ble
Apex Court, it would not be in the interests of justice to
quash the FIR relating to corruption only on the basis of
compromise between the present applicant and the original
complainant.
20. Coming to another aspect regarding application of
Sections 7 and 12 in view of the Old P.C.Act of 1988.
21.
Section 7 of the Old P.C.Act of 1988 deals with
“public servant taking gratification other than legal
remuneration in respect of an official act”, which is
reproduced as under:
“7. Public servant taking gratification other than
legal remuneration in respect of an official act. -
Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public
servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or
attempts to obtain from any person, for himself
or for any other person, any gratification
whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a
motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do
any official act or for showing or forbearing to
show, in the exercise of his official functions,
.....20/-

Judgment
apl1482.25
20
favour or disfavour to any person or for
rendering or attempting to render any service or
disservice to any person, with the Central
Government or any State Government or
Parliament or the Legislature or any State or
with any local authority, corporation or
Government company referred to in clause (c)
of section 2, or with any public servant, whether
named or otherwise, shall be punishable with
imprisonment which shall be not less than six
months but which may extend to five years and
shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation. - (a) “Expecting to be a public
servant”. If a person not expecting to be in
office obtains a gratification by deceiving others
into a belief that he is about to be in office, and
that he will then serve them, he may be guilty of
cheating, but he is not guilty of the offence
defined in this section.
(b) “Gratification”. The word “gratification” is
not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to
gratifications estimable in money.
(c) “Legal remuneration”. The words “legal
remuneration” are not restricted to
remuneration which a public servant can
lawfully demand, but include all remuneration
which he is permitted by the Government or the
organization, which he serves, to accept.
.....21/-

Judgment
apl1482.25
21
(d) “A motive or reward for doing”. A person
who receives a gratification as a motive or
reward for doing what he does not intend or is
not in a position to do, or has not done, comes
within this expression.
(e) Where a public servant induces a person
erroneously to believe that his influence with
the Government has obtained a title for that
person and thus induces that person to give the
public servant, money or any other gratification
as a reward this service, the public servant has
committed an offence under this section.”
22.
Section 8 of the Old P.C.Act of 1988 deals with
taking gratification, in order, by corrupt or illegal means, to
influence public servant, which is reproduced below as
under:
“8. Whoever accepts or obtains, or agrees to
accept, or attempts to obtain, from any person,
for himself or for any other person, any
gratification whatever, as a motive or reward for
inducing, by corrupt or illegal means, any public
servant, whether named or otherwise, to do or
to forbear to do any official act, or in the
exercise of the official functions of such public
.....22/-

Judgment
apl1482.25
22
servant to show favour or disfavour to any
person, or to render or attempt to render any
service or disservice to any person with the
Central Government or any State Government
or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or
with any local authority, corporation or
Government company referred to in clause (c)
of section 2, or with any public servant, whether
named or otherwise, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall be not less
than six months but which may extend to five
years and shall also be liable to fine.”
23. Section 12 of the Old P.C.Act of 1988 deals with
punishment for abetment of offences defined in section 5
or 11, which is reproduced below as under:
“12. Punishment for abetment of offences
defined in section 7 or 11. - Whoever abets any
offence punishable under section 7 or section
11 whether or not that offence is committed in
consequence of that abetment, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which
shall not not less than six months but which
may extend to five years and shall also be liable
to fine.”
.....23/-

Judgment
apl1482.25
23
24.
Admittedly, the “abetment” is not defined under the
P.C.Act, but the “abetment” is defined under Section 107 of
the IPC, which states that, a person abets the doing of a
thing, who (i) instigates any person to do that thing; or (ii)
engages with one or more other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in
order to the doing of that thing; or (iii) intentionally aids,
by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation-1 to Section 107 of the IPC states that a
person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful
concealment of a material fact which he is bound to
disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to
cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the
doing of that thing.
.....24/-

Judgment
apl1482.25
24
25.
In order to constitute “abetment”, the abettor must
be shown to have intentionally aided the commission of the
crime.
26. After going through the definition of “abetment” and
essential ingredients, admittedly, the act of the present
applicant covers under Explanation-1 to Section 107 of the
IPC and, therefore, the application of Section 12 of the
P.C.Act against the applicant sustains.
27. Admittedly, Section 7 of the P.C.Act deals with acts
by public servants.
28. The applicant, who is lawyer by profession, is not a
“public servant” within the definition of “public servant”
given under Section 2(c) of the P.C.Act.
29. The legal profession is a challenging one, which is
also called as 'noble' and its practitioners are regarded as
honourable members. An advocate shall, at all limits,
comfort himself in a manner befitting his status as an
.....25/-

Judgment
apl1482.25
25
officer of the court, a privileged member of the community,
and a gentleman, bearing in mind that what may be lawful
and moral for a person who is not a member of a Bar, or for
a member of a bar in his non-professional capacity may still
be improper for an Advocate, as per the preamble of
Chapter II Part VI of Bar Council of India Rules, 1961. The
said preamble further states, that without prejudice to the
generality of the forgoing obligation, an Advocate shall
fearlessly uphold the interest of his client, and in his
conduct conform to the rules here in after mentioned both
in letter and in spirit. The rules hereinafter mentioned
contains cannon of conduct and etiquette adopted by
general guides; yet the specific mention thereof shall not be
construed as a denial of the existence of other equally
imperative though not specifically mentioned. Thus, role of
a lawyer in the society is basically to help an individual to
find the best way to redress a dispute or prevent one from
occurring and not to loot their money. There should be a
.....26/-

Judgment
apl1482.25
26
feeling in the mind set of clients that, consulting a lawyer
promptly should help them avoid a wide range of problems
and reduce financial losses and not otherwise, as is
prevalent as on date. Legal profession is a service-oriented
profession. It should always be remembered that, a Lawyer
is a representative of clients or a neutral third party, an
Officer of the legal system and a public citizen having
special responsibility for the quality of justice. Though, it is
difficult for a Lawyer to protect the interests of their clients
in toto, independence is the key for providing unbiased
advice and representation to a client. Lawyers must also
maintain the highest standards of honesty, integrity and
fairness towards clients, Court, other lawyers and members
of the public, including fulfillment of any undertaking given
in the course of their practice.
30. In the light of the above said duties casted upon the
lawyers who are in noble legal profession from whom
utmost integrity and loyalty is expected.
.....27/-

Judgment
apl1482.25
27
31.
The above act of the present applicant is not
befitting in the said principles.
32. In view of the above discussion, the offence is made
out against the present applicant under Section 12 of the
P.C.Act.
Admittedly, offences are not made out against him
under Sections 7 and 15 of the P.C.Act.
33. As already observed, powers are not to be exercised
for offence under the special statute like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public
servants while working in that capacity under Section 482
of the CrPC or 528 BNSS merely on the basis of
compromise between victim and offender.
34. Considering the Constitutional Courts owe a duty to
the people of the nation to show zero tolerance to
corruption and in view of the observations of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of The State of Chhattisgarh vs.
.....28/-

Judgment
apl1482.25
28
Aman Kumar Singh and ors supra, this is not a fit case
wherein the said powers can be exercised in favour of the
present applicant.
35. The parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court for the purpose of quashing of FIRs, if applied to the
present case, admittedly, there is a prima facie case
against the present applicant as far as the ‘abetment” is
concerned and, therefore, the application deserves to be
rejected and the same is rejected accordingly.
Application stands disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
!! BrWankhede !!
Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 11/03/2026 14:54:20
...../-