Authority: Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Order Date: 11 September 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners: Naresh Vishwambhar Sharma (age 54, business) and Sunita Naresh Sharma (age 48, business), residing at A/1002, Rushi Tower, Lokhandwala, Mumbai.
- Respondents: (1) State of Maharashtra (represented by Sr. P. I. at Panvel City Police Station) and (2) Shri. Hanumant Girjappa Londhe (age 47, contractor), residing at Prathamesh HSG., Plot‑D‑63, Kharghar, Raigad.
- The petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section 528 of BNSS) seeking to quash the FIR dated 22 February 2013 (FIR No. I‑77/2013) and subsequent charge‑sheet RCC No. 566 of 2013, as well as the charge‑framing order dated 23 December 2022.
- Background: In 2007, respondent 2 (Hanumant Londhe) obtained a construction contract from JKS Infrastructure Private Limited and purchased centering material worth Rs 8,22,600. After completing the work in 2008, he stored the material at the premises of C.C.I. Logistic Pvt. Ltd due to monsoon concerns, expecting subsequent toilet‑slab work.
- The work was later awarded to three other contractors (Kesubhai Patel, Pravin Mhatre, Sajjan Kamble) who allegedly used the material without consent. Repeated requests for return and payment led to an alleged assault by a C.C.I. Logistics supervisor.
- On 18 July 2009, a meeting among the three contractors resulted in a written agreement to pay Rs 1,75,000 as rent for the material; the petitioners signed only as witnesses.
- The FIR alleged offences under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating) and 34 (common intention) of the IPC against the petitioners and co‑accused.
- The petitioners argued the FIR was misdirected, there was no entrustment, no dishonest inducement, and the delay in filing (2013) was unjustified. They relied on Supreme Court precedent (Delhi Race Club Ltd. vs State of UP) that Sections 406 and 420 cannot coexist without entrustment.
- Respondent 2 contended that the material was kept at the petitioners’ premises on the promise of future work, and that Sections 406 and 420 could be framed together under Section 221 of the CrPC.
- The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision application on 13 Oct 2022, upholding the charge‑framing.
Final Outcome
- The High Court, after detailed examination of the FIR, charge‑sheet, and the written rent agreement, held that:
- No entrustment of the material to the petitioners was established.
- No dishonest inducement or cheating was alleged against the petitioners.
- The ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC are absent; they cannot co‑exist without entrustment.
- The allegation of common intention under Section 34 is unsupported as the petitioners did not share a common purpose with the co‑accused.
- Consequently, the Court exercised its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings, finding the case “totally groundless” and an “abuse and misuse of the process of law.”
- The petition was allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c1), resulting in the dismissal of the FIR, charge‑sheet, and all related criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
Topics: Criminal Procedure, Entrustment Law, IPC Sections 406 & 420