Bombay High Court
Sameer S/O. Sureshrao Dhawale vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Civil Lines, … on 19 August, 2025
Author: Anil L. Pansare
Bench: Anil L. Pansare
2025:BHC-NAG:8157-DB
55 apl 18.23.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 18/2023
Sameer S/o. Sureshrao Dhawale,
Aged about 46 yrs., Occ. Business,
R/o. Shrikunj, First Floor,
C/o. Sachin Bajad, Old RTO Road,
behind Rami Heritage, Kirti Nagar,
Akola.
...APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through P.S.O. Civil Lines,
Akola, Tal. & Dist. Akola.
2. Smt. Veena Wd/o. Sureshrao Dhawale,
Aged about 69 yrs., Occ. Household,
R/o. Siddhi Bungalow, Alsi Plots,
Akola, Tal. & Dist. Akola.
NON-APPLICANTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anil Mardikar, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Ved R. Deshpande,
Advocate for applicant.
Mr. S.S. Hulke, Addl. Public Prosecutor for non-applicant
No.1/State.
Mr. F.T. Mirza, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Z.Z. Haq, Advocate for
non-applicant No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND
M. M. NERLIKAR, JJ.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT : 31.07.2025
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT : 19.08.2025
55 apl 18.23.odt
2
JUDGMENT :
(PER: M. M. NERLIKAR , J.)
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of
parties, heard finally.
3. The present application is filed for quashing charge-
sheet bearing No. 606/2022 dated 16.12.2022 and proceedings
in RCC No. 1591/2022 pending before the learned 4 th Jt.
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola, arising out of First
Information Report (“FIR”) bearing Crime No.327/2022 dated
20.07.2022 registered with Police Station Civil Lines, Akola,
Taluka and District Akola for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 409, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
4. Brief facts:-
The First Information Report was lodged by non-
applicant No.2 Smt. Veena wd/o. Sureshrao Dhawale who is
the mother of present applicant. It is alleged in the FIR that
Suresh Dhawale husband of non-applicant No.2 and father of
55 apl 18.23.odt
3present applicant died on 13.02.2021. Deceased husband
namely Suresh Dhawale started business under the name and
style of “M/s. Dhawale Automobiles” which was a partnership
Firm. It is further alleged that accused No.2 who is the
Manager of Axis Bank had issued a notice dated 10.09.2020, by
which the informant came to know that the applicant and
accused No. 2 have committed misappropriation of the
property of the partnership Firm by availing loan and
distributing the same illegally. Despite of fact of dissolution of
Partnership Firm by letter dated 03.06.2019, the present
applicant continued with the business of the Firm illegally. It is
further alleged that in connivance with the Manager of Axis
Bank, viz accused No.2 applicant misappropriated
Rs.80,50,000/- and that amount was used for their own
purpose. Based on these allegations, FIR bearing Crime
No.327/2022 dated 20.07.2022 was registered.
5. Mr. Anil Mardikar, the learned senior counsel for the
applicant submits that the informant is the mother of present
applicant and at the instigation of another son i.e. brother of
55 apl 18.23.odt
4
present applicant namely Pushkar Dhawale, the present
complaint was lodged. A property dispute arose after the death
of their father Suresh Dhawale which has given rise to several
civil litigations and are pending for adjudication in the Court of
law. It is further submitted that the present FIR is registered
with an ulterior motive in order to pressurize the applicant.
The learned senior counsel has also contended that even if the
contents of FIR is taken as it is, no offence is made out, as the
dispute is of civil nature, which has been given colour of
criminal proceedings. It is submitted that though the deceased
Suresh Dhawale issued notice on 03.06.2019, thereby
dissolving the partnership Firm i.e. “M/s. Dhawale
Automobiles”, however, the responsibility to wind up the affairs
of the Firm and to complete the transactions still persists as per
Section 47 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (“the Act of
1932”).
6. In light of Section 47 of the Act of 1932, it is argued
that in order to complete the liability of the Firm, he continued
with the transactions of the Firm. Our attention was invited to
55 apl 18.23.odt
5
various documents in order to show that there is no
misappropriation on the part of the applicant. On the contrary,
he was required to borrow loan so as to pay others in order to
fulfil his obligation as a partner. It was also submitted that he
has paid huge amount towards his obligation as a partner and
there is no misappropriation as referred in the FIR. Lastly, it
was submitted that there is absence of material against the
applicant in the charge-sheet in order to connect the applicant
with the alleged crime and therefore, requested for quashing
the criminal proceedings.
7. On the other hand, learned APP for non-applicant
No.1 and Mr. F. T. Mirza, the learned senior counsel for non-
applicant No. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing
the criminal proceedings. They both submitted that the offence
is serious in nature. It is submitted that deceased Suresh
Dhawale has issued notice on 03.06.2019 stating that the
applicant had left no other option to Suresh Dhawale but to
issue notice of dissolution of Firm due to illegal activities of
applicant and therefore, by the said notice, Suresh Dhawale
55 apl 18.23.odt
6
had dissolved the Firm i.e. “M/s. Dhawale Automobiles”. Even
after the notice which was duly served on the applicant, he
unilaterally conducted the transactions of the Firm. He has
availed loan which is not permissible even taking into
consideration Section 47 of the Act of 1932 and this by itself
shows that he is having every intention to cheat deceased
Suresh.
8. Learned senior counsel Mr. F.T. Mirza further submits
that there is enormous misappropriation of amount, however
the Investigating Officer has conducted the investigation half-
heartedly and therefore, he requests in the interest of justice to
bring the truth, to direct further investigation. He further
submits that though the Investigating Officer collected certain
account statements of the Bank, however besides that he has
done nothing. The Investigating Officer ought to have followed
the money trail, however there is nothing in the charge-sheet to
show where the money has gone. He lastly submits that by
rejecting the present application, this Court may direct further
investigation invoking powers under Section 482 of the Code of
55 apl 18.23.odt
7
Criminal Procedure (“the Code”) in order to do complete
justice.
9. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and after
going though the material placed before us, we find that the
FIR was registered by the mother i.e. non-applicant No.2
against son i.e. present applicant. Though during the lifetime,
deceased Suresh Dhawale issued notice on 03.06.2019 thereby
dissolving the partnership Firm i.e. “M/s. Dhawale
Automobiles”, however even after dissolution of the Firm, the
present applicant carried on further business unilaterally which
is contrary to the provisions of the Partnership Act, 1932.
Though the learned senior counsel for applicant tried to submit
that the dispute is of civil nature to which criminal colour was
given, however the same is not acceptable as there are serious
allegations of misappropriation amount.
10. To buttress the submissions, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the applicant has relied on as many as
ten judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which are
55 apl 18.23.odt
8
Shailesh Kumar Singh Alias Shailesh R. Singh Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and ors. (Criminal Appeal No.2963/2025, decide on
14.07.2025), Sachin Gar Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2024
SCC Online SC 82, Naresh Kumar and another Vs. The State of
Karnataka and another, (Criminal Appeal—–/2024 arising out
of SLP (CRL.) No.1570/2021, decided on 12.03.2024 ),
Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel and others Vs. State of
Maharashtra and another, (Criminal Appeal No.4003/2024
arising out of SLP (CRL) No.4044/2018, decided on
25.09.2024), Ahmad Ali Quraishi and another Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and another, (2020) 13 SCC 435 , Delhi Race
Club (1940) Ltd. and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another, 2024 SCC Online SC 2248, Velji Raghavji Patel Vs. The
State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 1433, Saligram Ruplal
Khanna Vs. Kanwar Rajnath, 1974 CJ (SC) 340, Harshendra
Kumar D. Vs. Rebatilata Koley and others, (2011) 3 SCC 351
and Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial
Magistrate and others, (1998) 5 SCC 749. The sum and
substance of all these judgments depict that if the allegations
55 apl 18.23.odt
9
are not made out and they do not constitute the offence and
allegations are of civil nature, the High Court can quash the
criminal proceedings. Further, the ratio which can be gathered
from these judgment is that to constitute an offence of
cheating, there has to be something more than a prima facie
case on record to indicate that the intention of the accused was
to cheat the complainant right from the inception. The plain
reading of the FIR, however, does not disclose any element of
criminality. Further, reliance is placed by learned senior
counsel on the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 10 SCC 690, wherein it is held
that the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian
Penal Code cannot go hand in hand.
11. We have gone through the Partnership Deed.
Deceased Suresh Dhawale was having 60% share, whereas the
present applicant is having 40% share as per Clause (3) of the
Partnership Deed dated 01.03.2014. Clause (3) of the
Partnership Deed also speaks about the duration of the
partnership and that the Partnership Firm shall be “At Will”.
55 apl 18.23.odt
10
The business of the Partnership Firm is to sell Tractors, Trailers,
spares, Mild Steel and Agricultural Implements along with
Repairs of Tractors, Trailers and Agricultural Implements and
further to divert and do the business as mutually decided by
the partners in the future. The partners may arrange and/or
contribute the funds to the Firm under their current account
and/or loan account from time to time.
12. The learned senior counsel for applicant has taken us
to clause which states, in case of death, insolvency or
retirement of any partner, the Partnership Firm shall not be
dissolved and the surviving partner/s may continue to carry on
the business either as the Sole proprietor or in Partnership with
others as may be mutually agreed upon by and between the
surviving partners. However, it can be gathered from the
recital of the Partnership Deed that the duration of the
Partnership Firm was “At Will” and as soon as the notice of
dissolution was issued to the present applicant by deceased
Suresh Dhawale on 03.06.2019, the firm stood dissolved and it
was the duty of the present applicant to stop all the
55 apl 18.23.odt
11
transactions on behalf of the Partnership Firm. However, the
present applicant has not only availed loans from different
persons, but also carried out several transactions on behalf of
the Firm as can be gathered from the material placed before us.
13. It is not out of place to mention at this juncture that
though the Partnership Firm was dissolved, however the
business continued even after notice of dissolution dated
03.06.2019. The statement of account of the Firm depicts that
the applicant has borrowed huge amount from his wife namely
Snehal and has also paid huge amount to her.
14. The report as lodged by non-applicant No.2 indicates
that on 03.06.2019, the husband of non-applicant No. 2 issued
a notice to the applicant stating therein that the partnership
stands dissolved. Despite such status, the applicant has on
07.06.2019, paid to Ashok Leyland an amount of Rs.
80,50,000/-. According to non-applicant No. 2, this transaction
amounts to misappropriation of amount and further that the
55 apl 18.23.odt
12
bank manager has facilitated this transaction and, therefore,
the applicant and bank manager are made accused.
15. The argument of petitioner is that the amount paid on
07.06.2019 is the amount of transaction that occurred on
31.05.2019 and, therefore, under Section 47 of the Act of 1932,
the transaction was not only permissible but is something
which the applicant was duty bound to pay as a liability due
and payable to Ashok Leyland.
16. We find that such payment may be permissible in
terms of Section 47 of the Act of 1932. The matter, however,
does not end here. What transpires from the documents placed
on record is that the applicant has, after 07.06.2019, continued
the transactions in the said account and has paid huge amount
to his wife and has also received amount from her. Similarly,
amount is paid and received from various other persons.
17. The argument of the petitioner is that the applicant’s
wife is a separate entity and that the firm has taken loan from
her right from the year 2013-14 and, therefore, the entries post
55 apl 18.23.odt
13
07.06.2019 will have to be understood in the light of what has
been provided under Section 47 of the Act of 1932.
18. Thus, it is suggested that the transaction done by
Dhawale Enterprises, the partnership firm, after 07.06.2019 is
in terms of Section 47 of the Act of 1932, which provides as
under:-
“47. Continuing authority of partners for purposes of winding
up.–
After the dissolution of a firm the authority of each partner to
bind the firm, and the other mutual rights and obligations of
the partners continue notwithstanding the dissolution, so far
as may be necessary to wind up the affair of the firm and to
complete transactions begun but unfinished at the time of the
dissolution, but not otherwise:
Provided that the firm is in no case bound by the acts of a
partner who has been adjudicated insolvent; but this proviso
does not affect the liability of any person who has after the
adjudication represented himself or knowingly permitted
himself to be represented as a partner of the insolvent.”
19. Mr. Mardikar, the learned senior counsel submits that
not only to Snehal the wife of applicant, but the amount was
also paid to others and therefore, he was performing his
55 apl 18.23.odt
14
obligation towards the Firm. The non-applicant No.2 has
disputed these transactions towards Firm’s obligation.
20. We cannot go into these disputed question of facts,
when we are exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code.
However, we find that there are several transactions of
borrowing money at the behest of the present applicant. We
have gone through the bank account statement of Dhawale
Enterprises to find that multiple transactions have been done
after 07.06.2019 which includes credit and debit entries from
the wife of applicant as also multiple entries in the name of
third party e.g. there is credit entry on 20.07.2019 which show
that Rs. 11,00,000/- approximately was received from Samarth
Fabrication and similarly, on 03.09.2021, an amount of
Rs.4,25,000/- approximately was received from M/s. Kubota
Agricultural. There are several entries which indicate that
various payments were made from the account of Dhawale
Automobiles like on 29.06.2019, an amount of Rs. 14,50,000/-
approximately was paid to Aditya Agency. On 10.07.2019, an
amount of Rs. 12,75,600/- was paid to Santosh Agrawal and
55 apl 18.23.odt
15
Rs. 5,50,000/- was paid on 16.07.2019 to Nilesh Agrawal.
There is, however, no investigation relating to these
transactions. We feel that Investigating Officer ought to have
recorded statements of the persons to whom either the amount
was paid or received to understand whether the applicant has
misappropriated the funds particularly when the husband of
non-applicant No. 2 has by letter dated 03.06.2019 dissolved
the partnership firm.
21. Another important aspect is a letter dated 01.07.2022
issued by Ashok Leyland to the Investigating Officer. The
company in the concluding paragraph has stated that the
applicant had informed the company that the partnership firm
is validly subsisting but he had not submitted any valid proof
regarding the same and accordingly, the business with Dhawale
Automobile was terminated. Thus the applicant made Ashok
Leyland believe that the partnership firm was validly subsisting.
Further, investigation is, therefore, necessary.
55 apl 18.23.odt
16
22. There is another angle to the dispute as well.
According to the applicant, his brother is the one who has
instigated non-applicant No. 2 and her husband to initiate these
proceedings by making false allegations. Thus, the entire
family is indulging into making allegations against each other.
What is important from the point of view of investigation is that
according to the applicant, his father i.e. husband of non-
applicant No. 2 was for many years prior to June, 2019,
mentally not fit and, therefore, he had filed a suit in the year
2020 for declaration and permanent injunction against his
father, brother and non-applicant No. 2 and sister of the non-
applicant No.2 stating therein that the father is of unsound
mind and hence is sued through next friend. According to the
applicant, the suit for declaration was filed seeking declaration
that the properties belonging to the non-applicant No. 2’s
husband i.e. applicant’s father and other such properties were
joint family properties.
23. Thus, the question is whether the non-applicant No.
2’s husband was mentally unsound prior to June, 2019. The
55 apl 18.23.odt
17
applicant has given details of Doctor and, therefore, the
Investigating Officer could have easily recorded the statement
and collected evidence about the mental status of the non-
applicant No. 2’s husband. Another relevant incident on this
point is that in July, 2020, the non-applicant No. 2’s husband
has executed a registered Will bequeathing properties acquired
by him.
24. Thus, on one part, there is a claim that the non-
applicant No. 2’s husband was of unsound mind much prior to
issuance of letter in June, 2019. As against the same, there is
documentary evidence that he had executed Will and while
doing so, Doctor’s certificate dated 24.07.2020 was obtained.
The certificate is issued by Medical officer, PHC, Agar stating
therein that Suresh Dhawale i.e. non-applicant No. 2’s husband
was physically and mentally fit to do his routine activities. The
investigation on this point could be relevant to understand the
truthness in the allegations.
55 apl 18.23.odt
18
25. Mr. Mirza has relied on the judgment of Devendra
Nath Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2023) 1 SCC 48,
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has, in context with powers of
High Court to direct further investigation, held thus:
“45. For what has been noticed hereinbefore, we could
reasonably cull out the principles for application to the
present case as follows:
45.1 The scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
is to ensure a fair trial and that would commence only after
a fair and just investigation. The ultimate aim of every
investigation and inquiry, whether by the police or by the
Magistrate, is to ensure that the actual perpetrators of the
crime are correctly booked and the innocents are not
arraigned to stand trial.
45.2 The powers of the Magistrate to ensure proper
investigation in terms of Section 156 CrPC have been
recognised, which, in turn, include the power to order
further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) CrPC after
receiving the report of investigation. Whether further
investigation should or should not be ordered is within the
discretion of the Magistrate, which is to be exercised on the
facts of each case and in accordance with law.
45.3 Even when the basic power to direct further
investigation in a case where a charge-sheet has been filed
is with the Magistrate, and is to be exercised subject to the
55 apl 18.23.odt
19limitations of Section 173(8) CrPC, in an appropriate case,
where the High Court feels that the investigation is not in
the proper direction and to do complete justice where the
facts of the case so demand, the inherent powers under
Section 482 CrPC could be exercised to direct further
investigation or even reinvestigation. The provisions of
Section 173(8) CrPC do not limit or affect such powers of
the High Court to pass an order under Section 482 CrPC for
further investigation or reinvestigation, if the High Court is
satisfied that such a course is necessary to secure the ends
of justice.
45.4 Even when the wide powers of the High Court in
terms of Section 482 CrPC are recognised for ordering
further investigation or reinvestigation, such powers are to
be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and in
exceptional cases.
45.5 The powers under Section 482 CrPC are not
unlimited or untrammelled and are essentially for the
purpose of real and substantial justice. While exercising
such powers, the High Court cannot issue directions so as
to be impinging upon the power and jurisdiction of other
authorities. For example, the High Court cannot issue
directions to the State to take advice of the State Public
Prosecutor as to under what provision of law a person is to
be charged and tried when ordering further investigation or
reinvestigation; and it cannot issue directions to investigate
the case only from a particular angle. In exercise of such
inherent powers in extraordinary circumstances, the High
55 apl 18.23.odt
20Court cannot specifically direct that as a result of further
investigation or reinvestigation, a particular person has to
be prosecuted.
26. Further, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and
another Vs. Akhil Sharda and others, (2023) 11 SCC 626 , in the
impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court FIR
No.260/2018 was under challenge. The High Court was
pleased to quash FIR No.260/2018, however it directed further
investigation in another FIR bearing No.227/2019, as the
allegations therein were very serious and it required further
investigation. Being aggrieved by the order of quashing of FIR
No.260/2018, the State approached the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the order of
quashing by observing in para 19 and 20 which read as under:-
“19. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and the
manner in which the High Court has allowed the petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., we are of the opinion that the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
quashing the criminal proceedings is unsustainable. The
High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in quashing the
55 apl 18.23.odt
21criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C.
20. It is also required to be noted that even the High
Court itself has opined that the allegations are very serious
and it requires further investigation and that is why the
High Court has directed to conduct the investigation by
CB-CID with respect to the FIR No.227 of 2019. However,
while directing the CB-CID to conduct further
investigation/investigation, the High Court has restricted
the scope of investigation. The High Court has not
appreciated and considered the fact that both the FIRs
namely FIR Nos.260 of 2018 and 227 of 2019 can be said
to be interconnected and the allegations of a larger
conspiracy are required to be investigated. It is alleged that
the overall allegations are disappearance of the trucks
transporting the beer/contraband goods which are subject
to the rules and regulations of the Excise Department and
Excise Law.”
As Could be seen, though the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside
the order of the High Court to the extent of quashing of FIR
No.260/2018, however, it has maintained the direction to
conduct further investigation which can be gathered from para
20 of the said judgment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court did not
disturb the finding so far as further investigation was
concerned. Therefore, it can be gathered from the aforesaid
55 apl 18.23.odt
22
decision that even in the quashment proceedings, if the High
Court comes to a conclusion that the investigation has not been
conducted properly, the High Court can exercise inherent
powers vested under Section 482 of the Code.
27. Thus, the scheme of the Code is to ensure a fair trial
and that would commence only after a fair and just
investigation. The ultimate aim of every investigation and
inquiry, whether by the Police or by the Magistrate, is to ensure
that the actual perpetrator of the crime are correctly booked
and the innocents are not arraigned to stand trial and in an
appropriate case, where the High Court feels that the
investigation is not in the proper direction and to do complete
justice where the facts of the case so demands, the inherent
powers under Section 482 Code could be exercised to direct
further investigation or even reinvestigation. It is also clarified
in the aforesaid judgment that the provisions of Section 173(8)
Code do not limit or affect such powers of the High Court to
pass an order under Section 482 Code for further investigation
or reinvestigation, if the High Court is satisfied that such a
55 apl 18.23.odt
23
course is necessary to secure the ends of justice. Even when
wide powers of the High Court in terms of Section 482 Code
are recognised for ordering further investigation or
reinvestigation, such powers are to be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection, and in exceptional cases.
28. In the circumstances, we find that there is a scope of
further investigation. Further, if the charge-sheet is accepted to
be true, it is difficult to hold that the transaction under
question is of civil nature.
29. Considering the peculiar facts of the present case, we
are of the view that there are serious allegations of
misappropriation of funds by the present applicant and to find
out truth, further investigation is warranted, which may favour
the applicant also in that sense.
30. In light of the above, present application is rejected.
31. We direct the Investigation Officer to conduct the
further investigation in accordance with law and submit the
supplementary charge-sheet as early as possible.
55 apl 18.23.odt
24
32. Application stands disposed of in above terms.
( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)
Gohane
Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 19/08/2025 18:38:52