Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 22 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Shri Ashish Kamlakar Tungare, 50, former Corporate Manager, Manmachine India Pvt. Ltd, residing at Nerul, Navi Mumbai.
  • Respondents: State of Maharashtra (through Pantnagar Police Station, Mumbai) and Shri Anil Prabhakar Sathe, Regional Manager, Manmachine India Pvt. Ltd.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Criminal Writ Petition (No. 3146 of 2017) filed under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash two orders that rejected the petitioner’s discharge applications.
  • Orders Challenged: (i) Order dated 7 December 2016 of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 73rd Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai (C.C. No. 232/PW/2010); (ii) Order dated 7 July 2017 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay (Criminal Revision Application No. 222 of 2017).
  • Procedural History: The High Court on 26 February 2018 allowed addition of the original complainant as Respondent No. 2 and issued notices. Subsequent notices were served; Respondent No. 2 did not appear. The Court stayed the trial proceedings on 8 August 2018 and later directed the investigating officer to inform Respondent No. 2 of the petition’s pendency on 26 February 2026.
  • FIR Details: lodged by Respondent No. 2 (Regional Manager of Manmachine India Pvt. Ltd). The petitioner, as Corporate Manager of the Ghatkopar Division, was tasked with recovering Rs 1,43,120 due from Mr Yogesh M. Parmar, Director of Fermatech Conferate Solutions Co.
  • Alleged Misconduct: Instead of collecting the cheque in the name of Manmachine India, the petitioner persuaded Mr Parmar to issue the cheque dated 13 August 2009 in favour of an unrelated entity, Arvind Clean Line. The cheque was subsequently stopped after Mr Parmar’s enquiry.
  • Confession & Charges: The petitioner allegedly confessed on 16 September 2009. C.R. No. 210 of 2009 was registered on 18 September 2009. Charges were framed under IPC Sections 420 (cheating), 408 (criminal breach of trust), and 511 (attempt to commit offence). The chargesheet is numbered CC/232/PW/2010.
  • Discharge Applications: The petitioner filed a discharge application under Section 239 CrPC on 17 December 2012 before the Metropolitan Magistrate. The magistrate rejected it on 7 December 2016. The petitioner appealed via Criminal Revision Application No. 222 of 2017; the Sessions Court rejected it on 7 July 2017.
  • Petitioner’s Arguments: No evidence linking him to the offence; false implication; no recovery of any incriminating article; company had not entrusted any property; chargesheet based on statements of interested witnesses; no cheque annexed; alleged that Section 408 is groundless; only one witness (Mr Sachin Sharma) implicated him.
  • State’s Arguments: The petitioner deliberately caused a cheque of Rs 1,43,120, payable to Manmachine India, to be issued to an unrelated company, Arvind Clean Line, thereby constituting cheating and dishonest intention.
  • Court’s Analysis: The Court examined the FIR, chargesheet, and the material on record. It found that the petitioner’s duty was to collect the amount in the name of Manmachine India and that he made false representations leading to the issuance of the cheque to Arvind Clean Line. The Court held that prima facie material exists to support the charges under Sections 420, 408 and 511. It referenced Supreme Court precedents (Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, State of Maharashtra v. Soma Nath Thapa, Palvinder Singh v. Balwinder Singh, State of T.N. v. Soundirarasu) elucidating the test for a prima facie case and the limited role of the court at the discharge stage.
  • Legal Reasoning: The Court reiterated that a discharge under Section 239 CrPC is permissible only when the material is such that, even if unrebutted, no case can be made out against the accused. Here, the material (cheque misdirection, confession, FIR, chargesheet) creates a strong suspicion and therefore a prima facie case, precluding discharge.

Final Outcome

  • The petition is dismissed. No order of discharge is granted. The orders dated 7 December 2016 (Metropolitan Magistrate) and 7 July 2017 (Sessions Judge) remain in force.
  • The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to Respondent No. 2 for information.

Topics: Court Discharge Application, Criminal Cheating Case