Bombay High Court

VARDA KAMLAKAR BADBADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 21 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

In the absence of any direct evidence of the petitioner’s involvement or receipt of proceeds, the discharge application must be allowed and the proceedings against her quashed.

Summary

The petitioner, accused No.2 in a criminal case involving fraud and money‑lending offences, sought discharge after the Sessions Court rejected her application. The prosecution relied mainly on statements of about one hundred investors who claimed the petitioner was present at her estranged husband’s office and had solicited investments, but no material showed she received any money or directly participated in the alleged diversion of funds. The High Court noted that the petitioner had been living separately from her husband since 2004, had filed for divorce in 2008, and the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent in 2010. It observed that the charge‑sheet contained no evidence of her complicity or receipt of proceeds, and the husband had even refunded some investors. Consequently, the Court quashed the Sessions Court’s orders, allowed the petition, and set aside the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner’s presence at the accused’s office and alleged solicitation of investors constitute sufficient material to continue the indictment.
Whether there is any evidence that the petitioner received proceeds of the alleged crime.
Whether the Sessions Court erred in rejecting the discharge application on the basis of suspicion alone.

Legislation cited

Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 — s. 32(b)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 406, 409, 420

Subjects

criminal procedure
discharge of accused
complicity
evidentiary insufficiency
divorce
separation
money‑lending offence

Judgment

20. CRI WP-747-12.odt

Amberkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 747 OF 2012

Varada Kamlakar Badbade Petitioner
.. (Org. Accused No. 2)
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
 Dr. Uday P. Warunjikar a/w Ms. Isha K. Hajare i/by Ms. Sonali
Chavan, Advocates for Petitioner
 Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for State
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 21, 2026
P. C.:

1. Heard Dr. Warunjikar, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr.

Karmakar, learned APP for State.

2. Petitioner is arraigned as accused No. 2 in RCC No. 2931/2009

pending before the learned JMFC No. 1 at Pune arising out of C.R. No.

50/2009 registered with Samartha Police Station for offences

punishable under Sections 406, 420, 409 read with 34 of IPC and

Section 32(b) of Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946. Accused No. 1 is

Kamlakar Badbade who is the husband of Petitioner. However, prima

facie record rather admitted facts placed on record show that accused

Nos. 1 and 2 have been separated by decree of divorce by mutual

consent dated 17.02.2010.

1 of 5
20. CRI WP-747-12.odt

3. What is intriguing are the dates in the present matter. Petition

for divorce was filed in 2008 and it is the contention of Petitioner that

since 2004 they were staying separately. While considering the case of

the Petitioner and the statements of nearly hundred investors recorded

during the course of investigation, it is seen that the complainant as

well as the investors have stated that they had seen the Petitioner, i.e.

Accused No.2 at the office of her former husband when they had

visited the said office in connection with investment proposal. They

have further stated that the Petitioner had herself requested them to

make investments. Save and except this statement, there is nothing

concrete brought on record by the prosecution even today when the

present Petition is heard to challenge the rejection of discharge by the

learned Sessions Court to show complicity of the Petitioner in the

crime or the proceeds of the crime.

4. The learned APP would vehemently contend that, while

considering the rejection of the Discharge Application, the learned

Sessions Court has duly considered and noted that the statements of

nearly 100 investors were recorded during the course of investigation,

some of whom have stated that the Petitioner was very much present

and had requested them to invest their amounts. It is submitted that

the aforesaid material has been considered by the learned Sessions

2 of 5
20. CRI WP-747-12.odt

Court to be sufficient material to proceed against the Petitioner and to

continue with the indictment against her.

5. It is seen from the record that the Proprietorship Firm in which

the investors made their investment belonged to accused No. 1

Kamlakar Badbade and was in his name. When a very pointed

question is asked to the learned APP to show the complicity of

Petitioner in the present crime by any investigative material unearthed

by the prosecution post investigation, learned APP in his usual fair

mindedness has answered in negative.

6. Dr. Warunjikar would draw my attention to the charge-sheet and

submit that, upon a specific query as to whether the prosecution has

placed on record any material demonstrating the complicity of the

Petitioner in having received any amount, either directly from the

investors or from her husband, in connection with the alleged

diversion and / or siphoning of funds, the answer thereto is in the

negative. In fact Dr. Warunjikar goes to the extent of stating that there

is not a single word to that extent reflected in the chargesheet which

has been filed. Merely on the basis of a strong suspicion unsupported

by any prima facie material demonstrating that the Petitioner was a

beneficiary of any amount received by the Investment Company of

Accused No.1 and having regard to the admitted position that the

Petitioner had separated from her husband during the relevant period

3 of 5
20. CRI WP-747-12.odt

when the investments were made, the benefit thereof, in the facts and

circumstances of the present case, must necessarily enure to the

Petitioner.

7. In view of the aforesaid observations and findings which

emanate from the record, I am in complete disagreement with the

findings returned in the judgment dated 16.07.2011 by learned

Sessions Court while rendering and returning the findings to the

contrary as delineated herein above. When there is no specific and

direct involvement of Petitioner or she having received the proceeds of

crime, it would not be possible for the Court to continue with her

indictment any further.

8. Record also shows that accused No. 1 has also settled by

refunding the amount of few of the investors. That itself shows that

indictment of Petitioner any further merely on the basis that she was

the wife of accused No. 1 and that she was spotted at the office or her

presence was there in the office of accused No. 1 during the years

prior to 2009 cannot be the sole ground for continuing her as accused

in the present matter.

9. Admittedly, it is borne out from the record that the Petitioner

was, at the relevant time, having two minor children. It is further an

admitted position that, since 2004, she had been residing separately

4 of 5
20. CRI WP-747-12.odt

from her husband; in 2008, she instituted a petition seeking divorce,

and ultimately, in 2010, a decree of divorce by mutual consent came to

be passed. These circumstances, taken cumulatively, clearly enure to

the benefit of the Petitioner. In that view of the matter, the impugned

judgment dated 19.07.2011 is not sustainable and therefore quashed

and set aside. Resultantly Cri. Revision Application No. 85/2010

stands allowed.

10. In consequence of the above, Petition stands allowed in terms of

prayer clauses (c) and (d) which reads thus:-

"(c) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any
direction or order in the nature of writ of certiorari and thereby be
pleased to quash the proceedings in R.C.C. No. 2931/2009 pending
on the file of Ld. Sessions Court, Pune,;
(d) that the impugned Orders dated 04/02/2010 passed by the Ld.
J.M.F.C No. I, Pune in R.C.C. No. 2931/2009 and Order dated
16/07/2011 passed by the Ld. Sessions Court, Pune, in Criminal
Revision Application No.85/2011 be quashed and set aside."

11. Petition is allowed and disposed.

Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Digitally
signed by
RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.08.21
20:17:15
+0530

5 of 5

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…