Bombay High Court
TUSHAR SHIVAJI UGALEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the criminal prosecution is inappropriate as the dispute is civil in nature and pending before a civil court, and therefore quashed the FIR and ordered the defreezing of the petitioner's bank accounts subject to a deposit in the civil suit.
Summary
The petitioner, a police constable, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashal of FIR No. 333/2025 registered for alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR arose from a family land‑sale dispute in which the petitioner allegedly received Rs.8,00,000 of a Rs.38,00,000 consideration and later sold the land to a third party, leading the complainant (the petitioner's uncle) to file a civil suit (Special Civil Suit No. 94 of 2025). The High Court observed that the core issue was a civil matter, already pending before the civil court, and that proceeding with criminal prosecution would be unnecessary and oppressive. Consequently, the Court ordered the FIR to be quashed, directed the defreezing of the petitioner's bank accounts, and required the petitioner to deposit Rs.5,00,000 in the civil suit as a show of bonafide intent. The order conditioned the deposit on the outcome of the civil suit and warned that failure to comply would revive the criminal proceedings. The writ petition and the related interim application were allowed and disposed of accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR for cheating and criminal breach of trust can be quashed when the underlying dispute is civil and pending before a civil court.
- Whether the criminal prosecution is appropriate in a matter that is essentially a civil dispute over land and consideration.
- Whether the petitioner's bank accounts should be defrozen pending resolution of the civil suit.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 528
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 316(2), 318(4)
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- Article 226
- quashal of FIR
- criminal breach of trust
- civil suit pendency
- defreezing bank accounts
- jurisdiction
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- cheating
- family dispute
Judgment
33.WP.2107.2026+.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2107 OF 2026
Tushar Shivaji Ugale .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2793 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2107 OF 2026
....................
Mr. Amol Ghuge a/w. Mr. Gourav Shahane and Mr. Gaurav Ugale,
Advocates for Petitioner.
Ms. Anuja S. Gotad, APP for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Satyajeet P. Dighe, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 03, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Ghuge, learned Advocate for Applicant; Ms.
Gotad, learned APP for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Dighe, learned
Advocate for Respondent No.2.
2. Interim Application No.2793 of 2025 stands allowed in terms
of prayer clause (a). Amendment is permitted to be carried out within
a period of one week from today. Reverification stands dispensed with.
3. The present Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 in the matter of Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the Petitioner seeking
quashing of First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) No. 333 of 2025
1 of 5
33.WP.2107.2026+.doc
registered on 13.10.2025 with Indira Nagar Police Station, Nashik for
cheating and criminal breach of trust punishable Sections 316(2) and
318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
4. The Petitioner’s Bank Accounts have also been frozen in the
meanwhile by the prosecution. The Petitioner is working as a Police
Constable in Nashik City Police and this is a lis between the family
members inter se with each other.
5. Respondent No.2 – Complainant happens to be the uncle of
the Petitioner. The Petitioner though related to Respondent No.2, is
working in Mumbai Police, and the FIR is lodged in Nashik. Precursor
to the lodging of the FIR happens to be an Agreement between the
parties, whereby the Complainant agreed to purchase certain land
belonging to the Petitioner for a consideration of Rs.38,00,000/-. It is
the prosecution case that Petitioner received Rs.8,00,000/- but
thereafter did not honor the said Agreement and infact sold the said
land to a third party. The Complainant therefore filed Special Civil Suit
No. 94 of 2025 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sinnar, but was
unsuccessful in obtaining any interim relief as his Application below
Exhibit-5 was dismissed on 13.03.2026 on merits. I am informed that
challenge to dismissal of Exhibit-5 is pending before the District Judge,
Nashik Court.
6. One of the key reasons for dismissing the Application below
2 of 5
33.WP.2107.2026+.doc
Exhibit-5 was reliance placed by the Court on a registered partition
deed dated 28.04.2023, by virtue of which the Petitioner became
independent owner of the subject property. In that view of the matter
the case of the Complainant that he would be the co-owner of the
property stood defeated and therefore, interim relief was rejected.
7. Prima facie, the dispute between the parties emanates from a
purely civil proceeding. Though it is argued before me by the learned
advocate for the Complainant that Rs.8,00,000/- were parted and they
have not been returned and therefore, the criminal prosecution has
been initiated.
8. Be that as it may, in view of the aforesaid facts, no purpose,
in my opinion would be served in allowing the present criminal
prosecution in view of the pendency of the civil suit between the
parties. In order to show the bonafides of the Petitioner, I direct the
Petitioner to deposit a sum Rs.5,00,000/- before the Trial Court in
Special Civil Suit No. 94 of 2025.
9. Needles to state that this amount shall be deposited by the
Petitioner within a period of 2 months from today. I immediately direct
the defreezing of the Bank Account of the Petitioner in terms of prayer
clause (c). Needless to state that Petition therefore, stands allowed in
terms of prayer clause (b). Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clauses (b) and (c) which read thus:-
3 of 5
33.WP.2107.2026+.doc
“b) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or
any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, and be pleased
to quash and set aside the F.I.R. No. 333 / 2025 registered on
13/10/2025 at Indira Nagar Police Station, Nashik, for alleged
offences under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the BNS, 2023.
c) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1
(State / Police) to take appropriate steps to unfreeze the
following bank accounts of State Bank of India, HDFC Bank, and
Axis Bank the Petitioner’s accounts State Bank of India A/c –
42942973136, HDFC Bank A/c – 50100386578699, Axis Bank
A/c- 918010101244287 and Bank of Baroda A/c –
20070100019365 and further direct said Banks to restore full
banking operations to the Petitioner. ”
10. It is further clarified that the amount which is to be
deposited shall stand deposited in the Civil Suit and shall be subject to
the outcome of the Civil Suit.
11. Needless to state further that the Respondent No.2
Complainant is permitted to seek withdrawal of the said amount after
its deposit before the Civil Court and the Civil Court shall determine
the same in accordance with law, if any such withdrawal application is
made. All rights and contentions of the parties in the Civil Suit are kept
open. This order is only for the purpose of quashing of the present
criminal proceedings and shall not come in the way of the parties in
determining the Civil Suit which shall be determined on the basis of
the evidence led by the Plaintiff and the evidence led in rebuttal by the
Defendants therein and strictly in accordance with law. If the above
deposit is not made and Petitioner does not show his bonafides as
directed, this order shall stand cancelled automatically and the
criminal proceedings shall stand revived forthwith, which shall be
noted by Petitioner.
4 of 5
33.WP.2107.2026+.doc
12. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
Interim Application is also allowed and disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by HARSHADA
HARSHADA HANUMANT
SAWANT
HANUMANT Date:
SAWANT 2026.09.04
11:13:48
+0530
5 of 5
Checking your session…