High Court Quashes FIR Against Bank Officials and BGR Energy Executives in Bank Guarantee Dispute -- No Criminal Intent Found in Commercial Transaction Under IPC Sections 420, 403, 406, 418, 425, 427 read with 34

Sub Category: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR
  • 9
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The High Court quashed an FIR registered against bank officials and company executives alleging criminal offences in connection with bank guarantee transactions. The complainant, had alleged that the petitioners conspired to transfer funds from expired bank guarantees, causing him financial loss. The Court examined the sequence of events including the complainant's request to close the guarantees, subsequent invocation by BGR Energy Systems Limited, and the bank's actions. The Court found that the dispute was essentially contractual and commercial in nature, lacking the necessary criminal intent required for offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court held that continuing criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process and accordingly quashed the FIR.

Headnote

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench quashed the FIR registered against bank officials of Bank of India and executives of BGR Energy Systems Limited -- The FIR was registered based on a complaint by Yogesh Nagpure alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating in relation to bank guarantees -- The Court held that the allegations did not disclose prima facie offences under Sections 420, 403, 406, 418, 425, 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) -- The dispute was essentially civil in nature involving bank guarantee transactions -- The bank had acted on the request of the complainant to close the guarantees initially -- Subsequent invocation by BGR Energy Systems Limited was within the contractual framework -- No criminal intent or mens rea was established -- The Court exercised its inherent powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to prevent abuse of process

Issue of Consideration: Whether the FIR registered for offences under Sections 420, 403, 406, 418, 425, 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against bank officials and company executives should be quashed when the dispute essentially involves civil liability arising from bank guarantee transactions

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the FIR in Crime No.262/2015 registered with Police Station Ranapratap Nagar, Nagpur

 

2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 145

Criminal Writ Petition No. 609 of 2015 with Criminal Writ Petition No. 631 of 2015

2026-02-23

Urmila Joshi Phalke J.

2026:BHC-NAG:3175-DB

Mr. A.T. Purohit, Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari, Mr. N.B. Jawade, Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar

Sh. Ajit S/o. Shirish Korde (deceased), Smt. Mrudula W/o. Rajendra Paonikar, P.K. Easwar Kumar, K. Sreenivasa Deva Kumar, R. Arunachalam

The State of Maharashtra, Sh. Yogesh S/o. Dnyaneshwar Nagpure

Nature of Litigation: Criminal writ petitions seeking quashing of FIR registered for offences under Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought directions for quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR registered at Police Station Ranapratap Nagar, Nagpur

Filing Reason

FIR was registered based on complaint by Yogesh Nagpure alleging criminal conspiracy and financial loss in bank guarantee transactions

Previous Decisions

Further investigation was stayed by order dated 27.10.2015 during pendency of writ petitions

Issues

Whether the FIR disclosed prima facie offences under Sections 420, 403, 406, 418, 425, 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Whether the dispute was civil in nature and criminal proceedings amounted to abuse of process

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that allegations did not disclose criminal offences and dispute was contractual State and complainant argued that criminal intent was established through bank's actions in transferring funds

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that when allegations in FIR do not disclose prima facie commission of offence, the Court can exercise inherent powers to quash proceedings -- Commercial disputes involving bank guarantees generally fall within civil domain unless specific criminal intent is established -- Bank's actions in relation to bank guarantees are governed by contractual obligations and banking regulations, not criminal law -- Continuing criminal proceedings in absence of criminal intent amounts to abuse of process of court

Judgment Excerpts

These Writ Petitions are filed for seeking appropriate directions for quashing and setting aside the impugned First Information Report The Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 609/2015 are the Senior Bank Officials of Bank of India, Nagpur, whereas the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 631/2015 are the officials of BGR Energy Systems Limited Said Yogesh Nagpure lodged a report against the Petitioners by approaching to Pratapnagar Police Station alleging that his firm received a civil work in relation to power plant As per the allegation of the Complainant, his firm had furnished bank guarantees for a specific period As per the allegations of the Complainant Petitioner No.2 who was the Senior Bank Manager in conveyance with deceased Zonal Manager and officials of the BGR Energy Systems Limited, transferred the amount and the loss is caused to the Complainant

Procedural History

FIR registered in 2015 -- Writ petitions filed in 2015 challenging FIR -- Stay on further investigation granted on 27.10.2015 -- Petitions heard on 09.02.2026 -- Judgment pronounced on 23.02.2026

Related Judgement
High Court High Court Quashes FIR Against Bank Officials and BGR Energy Executives in Bank ...
Related Judgement
High Court Court Quashes FIR Against Sagacious Impex in Soybean Trade Dispute. Nagpur court...