Allowed¶18

Ramesh Yelisha Natar v. Central Bureua of Inteligence Anti Corruption Branch Nagpur

Bombay HC17 Jan 2026APL/1933/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ramesh S/o Yelisha Natar v. Central Bureau of Intelligence ACB Nagpur; Criminal Application (APL) No. 1933 of 2025; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; 24-04-2026; quashing of FIR (2009), charge-sheet and proceedings in Special Case A.C.B. No. 13/2025; Sections 420 and 120-B IPC; Prevention of Corruption Act offences not applicable; WCL-DGR MOU; tipper supply allegations; all co-accused discharged; discharge application rejected as charge framed; trial pending since 2011; applicant aged 80 Ex-serviceman; proceedings set aside before District Judge-1 Amravati; costs Rs. 5,000 to Public Welfare Account Union Bank of India Nagpur.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings viz. Special Case A.C.B. No. 13/2025 pending before learned District Judge-1, Amravati set aside. ¶18

Ramesh Yelisha Natar vs Central Bureua of Inteligence Anti… — Corruption | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Proceedings viz. Special Case A.C.B. No. 13/2025 pending before learned District Judge-1, Amravati set aside.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings, charge-sheet and FIR registered against the applicant in Special Case A.C.B. No. 13/2025 should be quashed and set aside.

¶10

Court's answer

With all other co-accused already discharged, there is no question of attracting offence under Section 120-B of the IPC against the applicant.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

As the MOU was executed between WCL and the company, there is no direct connection of the applicant with WCL company.

¶18

Key takeaways

Prima facie no offence is made out against the applicant under Section 420 of IPC; the case is made out to set aside the proceedings filed against the applicant pending before the Special Court.ratio¶18
The applicant approached the Court at a belated stage, explained by the pendency of the co-accused discharge applications; this observation did not prevent relief being granted.obiter¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), Criminal Application (APL) No. 1933 of 2025 (decided 24-04-2026, Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, J.) allowed the applicant's plea to quash and set aside the proceedings, charge-sheet and FIR against him in Special Case A.C.B. No. 13/2025 pending before the District Judge-1, Amravati, arising from a 2009 FIR charging offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with Prevention of Corruption Act offences stated not to apply to the applicant. The applicant, an 80-year-old Ex-serviceman attached to the DGR company, was alleged to have knowingly supplied tippers to WCL at higher rent despite ineligibility. Holding: (i) with all other co-accused already discharged, no offence under S. 120-B IPC could attract against him; (ii) as the MOU was executed between WCL and the DGR company, the applicant had no direct connection with WCL and prima facie committed no offence under S. 420 IPC. The proceedings were accordingly set aside; costs of Rs. 5,000 imposed on the applicant payable to the Public Welfare Account, Union Bank of India (High Court Branch, Nagpur), receipt to be produced within two weeks.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:6466-DB

¶2

1 apl 1933.2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1933 OF 2025

¶5

[Ramesh S/o Yelisha Natar vs. Central Bureau of Intelligence Anti-Corruption Branch, Nagpur]

¶6

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

- - - - ------------------ - - - Mr. V. K. Nankani, Advocate for the applicant Mr. P. K. Sathianathan, Advocate for the non-applicant

¶8

CORAM: MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.

¶9

DATED : 24-04-2026.

¶10

The applicant has filed this application to quash and set aside the proceedings, charge-sheet and the First Information Report (FIR) registered against him.

¶11

The proceedings are before Special Court in Special Case A.C.B. No. 13/2025 in FIR of 2009 and charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which are not applicable to this applicant.

¶12

The prosecution case in brief is that there was MOU executed between WCL company and DGR company. The DGR company has provided tippers. The allegations are made against this applicant that he has provided tippers knowingly that he is not eligible to provide the tippers and the rent of tipper was at the higher side than the civilian tipper and, therefore, the applicant has committed offence punishable under Section 420 along with Section 120-B of the IPC.

¶13

2 apl 1933.2025

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has brought to the notice of this Court that since 2009, FIR is registered and the trial is pending before the Special Court. All other accused persons are already discharged against whom the other offences are registered. This applicant has filed discharge application before the trial Court. As the charge was framed, his discharge application was rejected. Thereafter this applicant has filed the application to set aside the proceedings against him before the trial Court. As all the accused persons are discharged, the trial is pending against this applicant only. The applicant is 80 years old. He is an Ex-serviceman and attached to DGR company. As no offence is made out against this applicant, he prayed to set aside the proceedings against the applicant.

¶15

Learned counsel for the non-applicant has stated that the applicant is an Ex-serviceman and though knowing that he is not eligible to provide tippers to WCL company, he has provided the same and cheated WCL. Hence, offence is made out against the applicant. He prayed to reject the application.

¶16

Heard both sides. It appears that the applicant has approached this Court at belated stage. The reasons given by the applicant that the discharge applications of other co-accused were pending and, therefore matter was pending for a same stage. The name of this applicant was not mentioned in the FIR, however, charge-sheet was filed against this applicant. When the applicant has applied for discharge, the charge was already framed. From the

¶17

3 apl 1933.2025

¶18

record it shows that he is running from pillar to post in this case. The only allegations against this applicant are about providing tippers to WCL. As other co-accused are already discharged, there is no question of attracting offence under Section 120-B of the IPC. The applicant has provided the tippers to the company. As the MOU was executed between WCL and the company, there is no any direct connection of this applicant with WCL company. Prima facie it appears that no offence is made out against this applicant under Section 420 of IPC, the case is made out to set aside the proceedings filed against this applicant under Section 420 of the IPC pending before the Special Court. The application is allowed. The proceedings viz. Special Case A.C.B. No. 13/2025 pending before learned District Judge-1, Amravati are set aside.

¶19

As the trial is pending since 2011 and considering the age of the applicant, costs of Rs. 5,000/to be paid by the applicant to the Public Welfare Account maintained with Union Bank of India, High Court Branch, Civil Lines, Nagpur bearing Account No. 129712010001014 and IFSC Code UBIN0812978 and to produce the receipt thereof on record within two weeks.

¶20

The application stands disposed of.

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

wasnik

¶23

Signed by: Mr. A. Y. Wasnik Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 27/04/2026 17:48:16

Ramesh Yelisha Natar v. Central Bureua of Inteligence Anti Corruption Branch Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Yelisha Natar v. Central Bureua of Inteligence Anti Corruption Branch Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohammad Bilal Moammad Yakub vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Pulgaon Ps Wardha Dist Wardha

Harish S/O Ashok Walke and Others. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Mankapur Nagpur and Anr.

Wasim S/O Akhtar Jimari vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Ps Padoli, Chandrapur

Sparkle Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. vs Shri Prakash Bandopant Patil and Ors.

Shrinivas Digambar Murudkar Since Deceased Through legal heirs vs Vilas Digambar Murudkar

Lokesh Mohanlal Chopda Chopra vs Jaya Lokesh Chopda Chopra