1 APL 446.2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO.446 OF 2022

Sachin s/o Suresh Chintawar,

Aged about 44 years,

Occupation-Architect,

R/o. Nr. Gajanan Mandir,

Wadgaon, Chandrapur,

Tah. & Dist. Chandrapur. .. Applicant

..Versus..

1.State of Maharashtra,

through its Police Station

Officer, Police Station, Saoli,

Tah. Saoli, Dist. Chandrapur.

2.Jivan Dashrath Tangadpalliwar,

R/o. Behind Ashoka Hospital,

Ward No.15, Mul, Tahsil-Mul,

District-Chandrapur. .. Non-Applicants

…………….

Shri Firdos Mirza, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A.

Subhan, Advocate with Ms. S.F. Mirza, Adv. for Applicant.

Shri G.S. Umale, A.P.P. for Non-Applicant No.1/State.

Shri Anup H. Lohiya, Advocate a/w Ms. S.O. Tapdiya,

Advocate for Non-Applicant No.2.

……………

CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.

RESERVED ON : 10.02.2026.

PRONOUNCED ON : 25.02.2026. 2026:BHC-NAG:3362-DB

2 APL 446.2022

JUDGMENT

1. The applicant herein is an Architect by profession and

had issued the valuation report of the property to Accused

Nos.1 and 2. The same was used by them to obtain a Bank

Loan. The Bank Officer lodged a complaint alleging that the

property is not available at the spot of which the valuation

report was submitted to the bank. According to the applicant,

the allegations are false and baseless and on the basis of

sufficient document filed on record, it is clear that the property

as on date stands on the same plot and, therefore, seeks the

quashment of the Regular Criminal Case No.37/2024 pending

before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Saoli arising

out of Chargesheet No.37/2024 for the offence punishable

under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of the

Indian Penal Code.

2. In the present case, the Manager of the complainant-

Bank lodged a police complaint against three accused persons

namely, M/s. Pranjali Traders through its Proprietor, Sau.

Sangeeta Rainchwar and Rajesh Vasantrao Rainchwar and the

present applicant namely, Sachin Chintawar.

3 APL 446.2022

3. It is alleged that the accused namely, Rajesh and

Sangeeta approached to the bank for grant of loan of

Rs.75,00,000/- for business purpose. At that time, the Branch

Manager advised them to submit the necessary documents

which will be considered for advancing loan to them. On

17.3.2016, they submitted the relevant documents including the

7/12 extract pertaining to the property bearing House

No.373/2/A along with that submitted 7/12 extract, valuation

report and the documents duly signed by the guarantor and

other relevant documents. After receipt of these documents, the

bank conducted the spot verification of the said plot and on the

basis of the spot verification, a detailed proposal was forwarded

to the Head Office and the Head Office after verifying the entire

documents approved the loan to the extent of Rs.75,00,000/-

and further executed the registered mortgaged-deed and the

charge was created on the property in the revenue record.

4. It is further alleged that thereafter on 7.12.2016 the

accused namely Rajesh and Sangeeta again approached to the

bank and requested for increasing the cash credit limit by

4 APL 446.2022

Rs.50,00,000/-. The bank authorities have again conducted the

same procedure i.e. verified the documents and the spot and

thereby increased the cash credit limit by Rs.25,00,000/- in

favour of those accused persons.

5. The accused namely Sangeeta and Rajesh could not

deposit the loan amount in time. Therefore, the bank has

issued notices to them for repayment of the loan. The Bank has

also initiated the proceedings under the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

Interest Act, 2002. In the said proceeding, the learned

Collector, by following the procedure, forfeited the mortgaged

property of the accused nos.1 and 2. At that time, the

complainant came to know that the mortgaged property was

not in existence on the plot. According to the complainant,

when the panchanama of the mortgaged property was done,

they came to know that the mortgaged property was not

actually found. According to them, at the spot, in view of the

building, they could not see the construction. As per the 7/12

extract, there was an entry of a residential house, but as per the

valuation report building and construction was not visible and,

5 APL 446.2022

therefore, the enquiry was made from the accused persons.

They did not cooperate in the matter and gave evasive replies.

As a result, the police complaint came to be filed against them

in the matter.

6. During the course of investigation, the Investigation

Officer recovered and seized the valuation report issued by the

present applicant wherein it was mentioned that the property

was situated at Chandrapur-Gadchiroli State Highway. The

property is commercial-cum-residential situated in a developed

area and the plot area came to be mentioned at the rate of

Rs.1500/- per sq. meter and the valuation of the report for

residential purpose which was to the extent of Rs.2200/- per sq.

meter, worth Rs.40,25,600/-. The valuation of the land

occupied by the Rice Mill and Godown was Rs.32,93,750/-. The

total valuation of the land was given by the present applicant to

the extent of Rs.73,19,350/-. In addition to this, a separate

valuation of the building was also mentioned in the valuation

report to the extent of Rs.88,39,360/- and as such the total

valuation of the entire property by the applicant was to the

extent of Rs.1,61,58,716/-.

6 APL 446.2022

7. It is further alleged that in pursuance of the

Securitisation Act, the spot panchanama was also done by the

Tahsildar pertaining to Survey No.383/2 and it was reported

that there is no house or construction. He has mentioned that as

per the measurement-sheet pertaining to Survey No.383/2-A he

has not found any house or building constructed on the said

land. Hence, on the basis of this allegation, it is the case of the

prosecution that the property of which the valuation report was

submitted by the applicant, same was not found in existence as

per the panchanama conducted by the revenue authorities. It is

alleged that present applicant without verifying the fact

whether there was any building construction on the land has

issued a false valuation report mentioning the building and

construction over the plot and accordingly the offence came to

be registered in the matter.

8. In the light of these allegations, the applicant who

approached before this court firstly pointed out that the

prosecution has wrongly interpreted the valuation report which

was submitted by him in the matter. To demonstrate this

7 APL 446.2022

submission, he has relied upon the valuation report dated

16.3.2016. According to him, as per the prevailing practice in

his office, while submitting the valuation report, the specific

purpose is recorded in each report. To substantiate this

submission, he has relied upon the valuation report issued by

him to one Shri Kisan Dudhani dated 20.11.2015 wherein the

purpose is specifically mentioned as bank purpose; valuation

report in favour of Shankar Gopichand Dahiwade, dated

18.8.2021, the purpose for which valuation is made is recorded

as visa process. However, in the present case, the disputed

valuation report on which the reliance has been placed by the

prosecution dated 16.3.2016, if perused, it nowhere shows the

purpose mentioned by the applicant for bank loan. It is only

mentioned that the same was prepared for the purpose of

present market value of the property.

9. It is the further submission of the applicant that

accused nos.1 and 2 have obtained the valuation report only to

ascertain present market value of the property and accordingly

he has prepared the said report, but the same was used by them

to obtain the cash credit limit and loan from the complainant-

8 APL 446.2022

bank. Hence, it was necessary for the bank to ascertain the

valuation report and its purpose, but without doing that

exercise, they have relied upon the said valuation report for

which he cannot be held responsible.

10. In respect of the submission of the prosecution that the

property which was valued by the present applicant is not in

existence itself, the applicant has relied upon the document

collected by the Investigation Officer during the investigation,

i.e. the Letter dated 25.8.2023 issued by the Executive

Engineer, Public Works Department, Naghbhid, to investigation

officer whereby he has stated that after the inspection of land

and construction prepared the comparative chart stating the

rate quoted by applicant and by his office after getting report

from Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Saoli.

Relying upon this document, according to the applicant, it is

crystal clear that as the property was in existence, therefore, the

said report was submitted by the Executive Engineer of Public

Works Department. Hence, the allegation made against him

that in absence of existence of the property, the valuation report

was prepared is prima facie incorrect.

9 APL 446.2022

11. During the pendency of the present application, the

applicant has filed an additional affidavit dated 4.4.2022 on

record. By this affidavit, it is clarified by the applicant that the

field Survey No.383 ad-measuring 1.94 HR was initially owned

by Smt. Sagunabai Nanaji Mohurle. The same was purchased

by the co-accused, Rajesh Rainchwar by registered sale deed

dated 13.2.2004 and placed on record the copy of sale deed.

After purchase of the land, the same was renumbered as Survey

No.383/2/A by the revenue authorities. The same can be seen

from the 7/12 extract of the said property. It is also pointed out

from the 7/12 extract from the year 2004-2005 to 2017-2018

obtained from Tahsil Office, Saoli, it is clear that there is an

entry of a residential house on the land recorded by the revenue

authorities, not only this, there are entries to the effect that the

land was mortgaged with the complainant bank in the year

2005 and 2010.

12. It is further stated by the applicant in his affidavit on

the basis of mutation entry registered bearing no.000048 that

the Sub-Divisional Officer has granted permission to co-accused

10 APL 446.2022

Rajesh for conversion of that land to a non-agricultural purpose

for construction of a residential building. He has placed on

record the photographs of the standing construction of the

residential house of the co-accused. In addition to this, he has

obtained the measurement-sheet about the measurement

conducted on 25.9.2018 by the office of Taluka Inspector of

Land Record for the land bearing no.383/2 of Saoli. The

perusal of the said map shows that there is a constructed area in

Survey no.383/2 and same is properly marked in the

measurement-sheet. It is also pointed out from the revenue

record, particularly 7/12 extract that the plot was again

renumbered as no. 383/2 in the year 2019-2020 showing the

measurement of land as 0.29.15 and 10.97.00 HR respectively.

Hence, on the basis of these documents, it is the submission of

the present applicant that the revenue record speaks in favour

of the applicant that there was/is an entry in the revenue

record.

13. The applicant has also placed reliance on the

undisputed documents which were prepared in respect of the

same property by one Architect namely, S.V. Uttarwar in the

11 APL 446.2022

year 2013. The perusal of the said report demonstrates that on

the disputed land, Rice Mill, Godown and other structure are

recorded in the valuation report of the present applicant. The

report was accepted in various transactions. But no one has

raised any objection against that report.

14. Apart from these documents, the applicant has also

stated that from the perusal of the complaint itself, it is clear

that it is the own case of the complainant that while granting

the loan of Rs.75,00,000/- for business purpose to the

co-accused and also for increasing the cash credit limit by

Rs.25,00,000/- they have visited the spot and after verification

of the plot, they have prepared a detailed proposal and

forwarded to the Head Office. Hence, the complainant being

satisfied that there was a standing building, as stated in the

valuation report, the same was forwarded by them to the Head

Office. Hence, considering this fact, it is not justified on the

part of the complainant to allege that the present applicant has

prepared forged and bogus documents.

15. The applicant has further relied upon the mortgaged-

12 APL 446.2022

deed prepared by the bank. In the said mortgaged-deed, the

scheduled of the property is recorded and while describing the

four boundaries of the property, they have specifically

mentioned that to the southern side of land, Survey no.383/2,

there is a Rice Mill belonging to Rajesh Rainchwar. Hence,

according to him, if all these documents are prepared by the

bank after spot inspection/verification, this allegation that the

property is not available on the spot is prima facie incorrect

allegation.

16. The learned APP has stated that this court while

exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure cannot make a detailed enquiry as to

whether the offence is made out against the applicant or not.

However, in this regard, it will be necessary to consider the law

laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India affirmed

again in the judgment of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani .vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC

1947, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 20 held as

under :

13 APL 446.2022

20. The following steps should ordinarily

determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing,

raised by an accused by invoking the power

vested in the High Court under Section 482 of

the Cr.P.C.:-

(i)Step one, whether the material relied

upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and

indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and

impeccable quality?

(ii) Step two, whether the material relied

upon by the accused, would rule out the

assertions contained in the charges levelled

against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient

to reject and overrule the factual assertions

contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is

such, as would persuade a reasonable person to

dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the

accusations as false.

(iii) Step three, whether the material relied

upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the

prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is

such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the

prosecution/complainant?

(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the

trial would result in an abuse of process of the

court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative,

judicial conscience of the High Court should

persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings,

in exercise of power vested in it under Section

482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power,

besides doing justice to the accused, would save

precious court time, which would otherwise be

wasted in holding such a trial (as well as,

proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it

is clear that the same would not conclude in the

14 APL 446.2022

conviction of the accused. [(See: Rajiv Thapar v.

Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of

2013))

17. It is the further submission of the present applicant that

in the present case, no offence is made out against the present

applicant under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian

Penal Code. From the documents which are available on record,

it is clear that the applicant has not prepared any bogus

documents as alleged against him and further he has not taken

any benefit of the same. So also the ingredients of said

provisions are not satisfied while including the applicant in the

said offence.

18. In the present case, from the discussion made above, it

is clear that the material placed on record by the applicant are

sound, reasonable and indubitable documents. The documents

relied upon are the public document and, therefore, there is no

reason to disbelieve the same. Considering this documentary

evidence, in my opinion, the same is sufficient to reject and

overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint.

Furthermore, the prosecution has failed to refute the assertions

15 APL 446.2022

and the documents made by the applicant in the complaint. In

the circumstances, continuing the proceeding with the trial,

would result in an abuse of process of the court and would not

serve the end of justice. Hence, in my opinion, this is a fit case

for exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. Hence, I proceed to pass the following

order

O R D E R

(1) The application is allowed.

(2) The proceeding of Regular Criminal Case No.37/2024

pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Saoli

arising out of Chargesheet No.37/2024 dated 24.6.2024

registered vide Crime bearing FIR No.218/2021 dated

16.11.2021 for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467,

468, 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police

Station, Saoli, Tah. Saoli, District-Chandrapur is hereby

quashed and set aside against the applicant only.

(3) No order as to costs.

(Pravin S. Patil, J.)

Gulande