Allowed

Sadashiv S/O. Jaywant Farande v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Jan 2023APPLN/1136/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed FIR and criminal proceedings against a bank branch manager alleging failure to supervise staff. It held that the materials showed negligence, not dishonest misappropriation required under IPC Sections 406 and 409, relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 440/2019 and consequent proceedings R.C.C. No. 99/2020 quashed and set aside qua the applicant.

Sadashiv S/O. Jaywant Farande Vs the State of Maharashtra — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

941.APPLN.1136.2020.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1136 OF 2020

¶4

SADASHIV S/O. JAYWANT FARANDE

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶7

...

¶8

Mr. N.B. Narwade, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. A.R. Kale, APP, for the Respondent – State.
Mr. Amarjit More, PSI, Karjat Police Station, Dist.
Ahmednagar present.

¶9

...

¶10

CORAM:SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI &
R.M. JOSHI, JJ

¶11

DATE:JANUARY 10, 2023

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

1.This is an application under Section 482 of

¶14

Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 440/2019 registered at
Karjat Police Station, Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar and
consequential proceedings bearing R.C.C. No. 99/2020

¶15

pending on the file of learned JMFC, Karjat for
offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

2.Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant and
learned APP for Respondent – State. We have perused the
records and considered the submissions advanced by
learned Counsel appearing for respective parties.

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

Malani

¶19

941.APPLN.1136.2020.doc

¶20

3.The short point for our consideration is,
whether the first information report and the other
material collected in the course of investigation
constitute offence under Section 406 and 409 of the
IPC.

¶21

4.The records indicate that the applicant was
working as Branch Manager of Parner Taluka Sainik
Sahakari Bank, Branch Karjat from 2010 till 2020. One
Dipak Ramdas Anasare was working as the Deputy Manager
in the said bank. The applicant herein lodged the first
information report on 29th August, 2019 alleging that
there were some shortcomings in the transactions
disbursed under Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana. The
applicant had issued notice to Dipak R. Anasare, who
was in-charge of clearing the cheaques, loan deposit,
etc and conducted inquiry in respect of the said
shortcomings. The applicant learnt that said Dipak
Anasare had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 1,46,000/-
which was deposited by Naib Tahsildar under Sanjay
Gandhi Niradhar Yojana. The said amount was to be
disbursed to the respective beneficiaries as per the
list forwarded by the Naib Tahsildar. It was revealed

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

Malani

¶24

941.APPLN.1136.2020.doc

¶25

that instead of crediting the said amount in the
account of said beneficiaries, the co-accused Dipak
Anasare had credited the said amount in his account as
well as in the accounts of his family members. It was
also revealed that Dipak Anasare had also withdrawn
amount from the accounts of the beneficiaries on the
basis of forged withdrawal slips.

¶26

5.On the basis of the first information report,
the aforestated crime came to be registered against
Dipak Anasare. In the course of investigation, the
applicant herein, who was the first informant, came to
be arrayed as an accused. The investigation has been
completed and the charge-sheet has been filed against
the applicant as well as the co-accused Dipak Anasare
for committing offences punishable under Sections 406,
409 read with 34 of the IPC.

¶27

6.The Applicant, as a banker, is charged of
offence for criminal breach of trust. In order to

¶28

attract such offence, apart from entrustment, the other
essential ingredients which need to be satisfied are:
that person has dishonestly misappropriated or
converted the property to his own use or dishonestly

¶29

Page 3 of 6

¶30

Malani

¶31

941.APPLN.1136.2020.doc

¶32

uses or disposes of the property in violation of any
direction of law prescribing the mode in which such
trust is to be discharged, as contemplated by Section
405 of IPC.

¶33

7.The records reveal that the Naib Tahsildar had
forwarded cheques along with a list of beneficiaries
under Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana. The said amount
was to be credited in the account of the respective
beneficiaries as per the list submitted by the Naib
Tahsildar. The records indicate that it was the duty of
Dipak Anasare to credit the amount into the respective
accounts of the beneficiaries as per the list submitted
by the Naib Tahsildar. Accordingly, the co-accused
Dipak Anasare had transferred the amount in the
accounts of the some of the beneficiaries.

¶34

8.The records reveal that one of the customers
Sangita Choudhary was having her account no. 6212 and
Parubai Barkade was having account no. 2313 in the said
bank. The material on record prima facie reveals that
Dipak Anasare had credited an amount of Rs. 1,46,000/-
in the account of said Sangita Choudhary, Parubai
Barkade, and in his own account though said Sangita and

¶35

Page 4 of 6

¶36

Malani

¶37

941.APPLN.1136.2020.doc

¶38

Parubai were not beneficiaries under the scheme. The
only allegation against the applicant is that he had
approved the deposit of the said amount in the account
of Sangita Choudhary, Parubai Barkde and co-accused
Dipak Anasare.

¶39

9.Learned APP states that the applicant being
the Branch Manager was required to exercise proper
supervision and control over the subordinate staff. It
is to be noted that the amount deposited in the
accounts of Sangita and Parubai has been subsequently
transferred in the account of the applicant and his
family members. The said amount was recovered from the
Dipak Anasare. There is prima facie no material on
record to indicate that the applicant is the
beneficiary or that he has misappropriated or converted
the said amount to his own use. The allegations against
the applicant may be at the most constitute negligence.
Suffice it to say that mere negligence would not
constitute offence under Section 406 and 409 IPC.

¶40

10.The first information report as well as the
other material collected in the course of investigation
does not disclose criminal breach of trust as defined

¶41

Page 5 of 6

¶42

Malani

¶43

941.APPLN.1136.2020.doc

¶44

under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The present
case is squarely covered by illustration (3) in the
case ofState of Haryana Vs. Bhajan lal reported in AIR
1992 SC 604. In such circumstances, continuance of
proceedings against the applicant would be sheer abuse
of the process of law.

¶45

11.Under the circumstances, the application is
allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’. Consequently,
FIR No. 440/2019 registered at Karjat Police Station,
Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar and consequential proceedings
bearing R.C.C. No. 99/2020 pending on the file of
learned JMFC, Karjat for offences punishable under
Sections 406, 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, are hereby quashed and set aside qua the
applicant.

¶46

(R.M. JOSHI, J.)

¶47

(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J)

¶48

Page 6 of 6

¶49

Malani

Sadashiv S/O. Jaywant Farande v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadashiv S/O. Jaywant Farande v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramraje S/O. Sidling Chandane and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jalindar Narayan Ubhedal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sayyed Umair Pasha S/O. Abdul Quadar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Raosaheb Vikram Latpate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sheshnarayan Rajanna Katkuri Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bharat Husen Lokhande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another