RAMESHWAR BHARAT KEDARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:42694-DB




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.285 OF 2023

                                  RAMESHWAR BHARAT KEDAR
                                           VERSUS
                           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

           Mr. Dhananjay Shinde h/f Mr. A. A. Phad, Advocate for the Petitioner
           Ms. R. P. Gour, APP for the Respondent/State
           Mr. N. C. Garud and Mr. A. A. Mundhe, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

                                                      CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                      DATED    : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.    The Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the

           Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

           Procedure, seeking quashing of FIR bearing Crime No. 601/2022 in respect of

           offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 & 471 of Indian Penal

           Code, the charge-sheet filed pursuant to the FIR, and the order issuing

           summons against him.



           2.    Briefly, the prosecution's case is that the Informant, who is the wife of

           the Petitioner, approached the police alleging that the Petitioner had obtained

           her bank statements in respect of accounts mentioned therein by forging her

           signature without her consent and these bank statements were subsequently



           wp285.23.odt                                                            1 of 10
produced and relied upon in the proceedings before the Family Court. These

bank statements bore bogus stamp and signature of Bank Authorities.



3.    The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent-

wife made false claim before Family Court with regard to the being

unemployed and having no income and the Petitioner has placed correct facts

before the Court of law and as such there cannot be said to be dishonest

intention of Petitioner in obtaining the said documents to bring fresh on

record. According to him, even if it is assumed that the Petitioner obtained the

bank statements of Respondent, merely obtaining such statements would not

constitute any criminal offence. He further argued that for an offence under

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code to be established, there must be a

fraudulent or dishonest act by deceiving any person resulting in wrongful gain

to one person and wrongful loss to another. He argued that, in the present

case, the Respondent has not been deceived nor any loss is caused to her or to

the Bank, neither Petitioner obtained any wrongful gain. He further submitted

that the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation do not

show that the Petitioner himself fabricated any document or signature.

Therefore, according to the Petitioner, no prima facie offence is made out

against him.




wp285.23.odt                                                             2 of 10
4.    The learned Advocate for the Petitioner relied upon the judgment of the

Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1999 SCC(Crl) 426 . He

also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mariam Fasihuddin

And    Anr.    Vs.    State   by    Adugodi     Police    Station   &     Anr.,

2024 AIR(SC) 801, in which the FIR was quashed in a case involving an

allegation that the wife had obtained a passport of the child by allegedly

fabricating the husband's signature. He also relied upon the judgment of the

Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Sandip Sahebrao Agre Vs. The

State of Maharashtra and another in Criminal Application No. 1647 of 2018,

decided on 07.09.2018, to argue that merely alleging cheating is not sufficient

unless the necessary wrongful loss or wrongful gain is established. He further

argued that the opinion of the handwriting expert was not conclusive and,

therefore, such evidence could not by itself justify putting the Petitioner

through a criminal trial.



5.    The learned APP and the learned Advocate appearing for the Informant

opposed the petition. They submitted that there are specific allegations

against the Petitioner that he fabricated the signature of the Informant and

used it for obtaining her bank statements. According to them, the statements

of the witnesses recorded during the investigation indicate that the Petitioner

obtained the bank statements by using the forged signature of the Informant,

wp285.23.odt                                                            3 of 10
even though he was not otherwise entitled to obtain those statements. They

therefore argued that there is sufficient material on record prima facie to

show an offence is made out against the Petitioner to make him face the

criminal trial.



6.    There is no dispute that the bank accounts concerned were individually

held by the Informant. It is also an admitted fact that the Petitioner produced

those bank statements before the Family Court in the maintenance

proceedings filed by the Informant. There is further evidence to show that

these statements of accounts were obtained by Petitioner. The FIR contains

specific allegations that the signature of the Informant was fabricated and that

the stamp and seal appearing on the bank statements did not belong to the

concerned bank. Statements of witnesses recorded during the investigation

indicate that the bank statements were obtained on the basis of a requisition

submitted by the Petitioner. In case of another Bank, it was stated by the

concerned bank employee that the Petitioner took away a printout of the bank

statement and that the employee had neither stamped nor signed that

statement. Though the Petitioner claims that the stamp and signature

appearing on the statement belonged to an employee of another branch. The

statement of witness does not support the said claim. In any case this becomes

defence of the Petitioner, which he would entitled to raise before Trial Court.

wp285.23.odt                                                             4 of 10
Since, there are disputed questions of fact regarding the genuineness of the

signatures, stamps and bank statements and regarding the manner in which

the documents were obtained, these issues cannot be decided by the High

Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. Such factual issues are matters to be considered and decided by

the Trial Court after examining the evidence recorded before it.



7.    The learned Advocate for the Petitioner argued that the essential

ingredients required to constitute offences punishable under Sections 420,

465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code are not satisfied in the present

case. It would be relevant to take note of the said provisions which read thus:-


      “(i) 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property:-
      Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person
      deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter
      or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or
      anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being
      converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with
      imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
      to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
      (ii) 465. Punishment for forgery.— Whoever commits forgery
      shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
      term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
      (iii) 468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.— Whoever commits
      forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged
      shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with
      imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
      to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
      (iv) 471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic

wp285.23.odt                                                             5 of 10
      record-Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any
      document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to
      believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be
      punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document
      or electronic record.”

8.    Alongwith above provisions it is also necessary to understand the

meaning of terms such as dishonest/fraudulent intention, wrongful loss and

wrongful gain in order to determine whether at the initial stage, any offence

is made out against the Petitioner. In order to make out offence punishable

under Section 420 of IPC, there must be dishonest intention to induce the

person deceived to deliver any property to any person or a valuable security

or anything signed and sealed and capable of being converted into a valuable

security. Thus, three different situations are contemplated therein i.e. (i)

delivery of any property or (ii) valuable security or (iii) anything signed or

sealed, which is capable of converting into valuable security and delivery of

any one of them. On deception would be enough to make out offence of

cheating.



9.    Section 415 of IPC defines cheating and any person who by deceiving

any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person to deliver any

property to any person.


.     Section 2(25) explains from dishonestly – Doing something with



wp285.23.odt                                                           6 of 10
intention to cause wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another.



.     ‘Wrongful gain’ as per Section 2(23) – means unlawful means of

property to which the person is not legally entitled.



10.   The word dishonest in the context of offence under I.P.C., is an act with

an intention to cause ‘wrongful gain’. The wrongful gain is not gain in terms

of money only but also to get some thing/property which the person is not

legally entitled. So also causing of wrongful gain to one and wrongful loss to

another is not contemplated in the Section 415 of IPC, as it states about

wrongful gain to one or wrongful loss to another. It must be coupled with

inducement and delivery of property.



11.   Coming back to the facts of the case, the Petitioner was not otherwise

entitled to receive/obtain the bank statements relating to the account

exclusively and individually held by the Respondent. Therefore, by allegedly

using the forged signature of his wife, the Petitioner obtained the bank

statements to which he was not entitled. Irrespective of the fact whether it is a

wrongful loss to Respondent or Bank it amounts to wrongful gain to the

Petitioner. The Petitioner by inducing bank employee on the basis of

fabricated signature of wife has obtained wrongfully Bank statements which


wp285.23.odt                                                              7 of 10
he was not entitled to receive. The Court therefore does not countenance the

argument of the Petitioner that he had not obtained any wrongful gain.

Moreover the statements of employees of Banks apparently support the case

of prosecution of fabrication of signature and seal on the Bank statements.

Thus, the offence of forgery for cheating is also made out against the

Petitioner.



12.   With regard to the judgment in Mariam Fasihuddin and Another

(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that, in that case, there was

no sufficient prima facie material to establish that the appellant had prepared

the false document by forging the signature of Respondent No. 2. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court also noted that the proceedings against the passport officer

had already been quashed and, therefore, there was no useful purpose in

continuing the prosecution against the appellant. Since the facts of that case

were different from the facts involved in the instant case, the said judgment

would not apply to the case in hand. Similarly, in Sandip Sahebrao Agre

(supra), Division Bench of this Court had mainly considered the unexplained

and excessive delay in lodging the report. In that case also, the Court found

that there was no intention on the part of the applicant to cheat the

Informant.




wp285.23.odt                                                            8 of 10
13.   Suffice it to say that the allegations in the FIR and the material

collected during the investigation sufficiently demonstrate, at the prima facie

stage, that there is fabrication of the bank records and forgery of the signature

of the Respondent for the purpose of obtaining her bank statements and that

the stamps and signature therein are fabricated/forged. Once prima facie

material on record indicates attraction of penal offences against the Petitioner,

this Court is not permitted to quash the proceedings. The defence, if any, of

the Petitioner can be considered only in the Trial. Moreover, this cannot be

called as vindictive or malicious prosecution, having regard to prima facie

material on record. Thus, the principles laid down in case of State of Haryana

Vs. Bhajanlal (supra) have no application to the present case.


14.   Another important aspect that is required to be considered by this Court

is that if such conduct by a person like the Petitioner is accepted and granted

approval by the Court, it would lead to encourage unscrupulous people to

obtain the bank statements of anyone by forging their signatures. This Court

finds that the Petitioner had a remedy available to him to seek the said bank

statements. If he required the bank statements of the Respondent for the

Family Court proceedings, he could have sought appropriate direction for

production of those documents from the Court. However, instead of following

that legal procedure, the Petitioner obtained the bank statements by using the


wp285.23.odt                                                              9 of 10
forged signature of the Respondent so also fabricated/forged record.

Therefore, this is not a fit case to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction of the

Court to quash the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the Criminal Writ

Petition stands dismissed.



15.   At this stage, learned Advocate for the Petitioner seeks continuation of

interim relief for a period of eight (08) weeks.



16.   Learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 submits that four weeks stay

would be sufficient.



17.   There is stay granted by this Court for the reason to enable the parties

mediation. The same is extended for a period of six (06) weeks from today.



18.   It is clarified that the above observations are prima facie in nature and

won’t bind parties as well as Trial Court during Trial.



                                                          ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp




wp285.23.odt                                                               10 of 10