Suresh Haribhau Ambhore vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Suresh Haribhau Ambhore vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire alleged misappropriated amount of Rs.156,50,00,000/- has been included in the crime/ongoing investigation, including the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act, with a supplementary charge sheet to follow.

Court's answer

On perusal of the communication dated 04.11.2025 of the investigating officer of the Economic Offences Wing, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act is included in the instant case.

Ratio / Principle

Further investigation has been undertaken after submission of the auditor's report to the Special Court, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar on 04.10.2025, and Suresh Ambhore has been made aware of the further investigation.

Key takeaways

The entire amount of misappropriation as audited, i.e., Rs.156,50,00,000/-, has now been included in the ongoing investigation; the petitioner's grievance appears to have been redressed and no further directions are required.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Writ Petition disposed of. The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) noted that despite a total alleged fraud of Rs.156 crores, the investigating officer's initial charge sheet covered only Rs.48 crores. Following the post-re-audit statement dated 22.09.2025 of Shri B. U. Bhosale, Auditor, seeking inclusion of the total misappropriated amount of Rs.156,50,00,000/- and a supplementary charge sheet, and a communication dated 04.11.2025 of the Economic Offences Wing, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, the Court found that the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act is included in the case and that the auditor's report had been submitted to the Special Court, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar on 04.10.2025, with further investigation underway and the petitioner made aware of it. The entire audited misappropriation of Rs.156,50,00,000/- having been included in the ongoing investigation, the petitioner's grievance stood redressed; no further directions were required and the petition was disposed of.

2026:BHC-AUG:1961-DB

1 39 wp 1315-25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

39 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1315 OF 2025

SURESH HARIBHAU AMBHORE VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Mr. N. R. Solunke h/f Ms. Solunke Sarita Narayanrao, Advocate for the Petitioner

Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, APP for Respondent-State

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

DATED : 19/01/2026

P. C. :

Heard rival submissions.

It appears that, despite the total alleged fraud amounting to Rs.156 crores, the investigating officer initially filed a charge sheet in respect of only Rs.48 crores.

However, learned APP has placed on record a communication dated 04.11.2025 issued by the concerned investigating officer of Economic Offences Wing, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The same is taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for identification. On perusal, it is evident that the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act is included in the instant case.

Moreover, though the initial charge sheet reflected a fraud of Rs.48 crores, as per the statement of Shri B. U. Bhosale, Auditor,

2 39 wp 1315-25

dated 22.09.2025, recorded after a re-audit, a request was made to the investigating authorities to include the total misappropriated amount of Rs.156,50,00,000/- in the crime and to file a supplementary charge sheet accordingly.

After recording the complainant’s statement, the auditor’s report was submitted by the concerned investigating officer to the Special Court, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar on 04.10.2025 and further investigation into the matter has been undertaken. The record also indicates that Suresh Ambhore has been made aware of the further investigation.

Therefore, the entire amount of misappropriation, as audited by the petitioner, i.e., Rs.156,50,00,000/-, has now been included in the ongoing investigation. In view of the same, the grievance of the petitioner appears to have been redressed and no further directions are required.

7. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. )

VS Maind/-