Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 368 (BOM)

Deepa Somaji Palkar v. State of Maharashtra

2025-02-17

NEELA GOKHALE, REVATI MOHITE DERE

body2025
JUDGMENT : Neela Gokhale, J. 1. The Petitioner seeks constitution of Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’) to investigate FIR No 143 of 2015 dated 17 th April 2015 registered by the Ghatkopar Police Station, Mumbai on the complaint of one Shri Bharat Rane, Assistant General Manager of the State Bank of India, Ghatkopar (West) Branch, Mumbai. The Petitioner is shown as an accused in the said FIR. Chargesheet emanating from the FIR is filed in the Case No. 4900558/PW/2019 before the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Vikhroli. The Petitioner also seeks a stay on the proceeding of the said case. 2. By order dated 28 th February 2022, this Court issued notice to Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. On the next date of hearing, the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent No.7 along with one Mr. Krishna Gupta had taken the Petitioner’s documents and misused the same to secure a loan. The Petitioner also stated that the documents used to secure a loan in her name were not hers and even the photograph on the said documents was not that of the Petitioner. Despite this, the General Manager of the SBI, Mr. Rane had implicated her in the FIR. On this submission made by the Petitioner, by order dated 2 nd September 2024, this Court issued notice to the Respondent No.6 as well. 3. On the next few successive dates, we found that the pace of the investigation was quite slow. In view of the same, Mr. Sagar, DCP, Zone VII informed us that the investigation shall be transferred to the Senior Police Inspector of Ghatkopar Police Station, Mumbai to conduct the investigation properly and expeditiously. Mr. Sagar assured that he will personally supervise the said investigation. This is recorded in our order dated 3 rd December 2024. 4. The case of the Petitioner essentially is that the Respondent No.9, one Mr. Santosh Palkar @ Santosh Palakar, arrayed in the cause- title as purported husband of the Petitioner hatched a conspiracy with other Respondents and taking undue advantage of the similarity of the name of the Petitioner with the Respondent No.10, who is the real wife of Mr. Santosh Palkar also named as Deepa Santosh Palkar defrauded the Banks/financial institutions for gaining funds illegally in connivance with bank staff and the Police themselves. Santosh Palkar also named as Deepa Santosh Palkar defrauded the Banks/financial institutions for gaining funds illegally in connivance with bank staff and the Police themselves. It is also the case of the Petitioner, that the Petitioner was shown as a principal borrower for a housing loan with various banks. It is her say that she has never sought a housing loan even though loans were sanctioned and disbursed in her account. She is aggrieved by the Police and other Respondents unnecessarily dragging her in the criminal proceeding and has thus filed the present petition seeking constitution of an SIT to investigate the alleged conspiracy. 5. On 18 th December 2024 when the matter was listed for hearing, the learned APP, Ms. Shinde representing the State informed us that after the case was transferred and investigation was carried out by the Senior Police Inspector of Ghatkopar Police Station, including recording of statements of persons concerned with the identity of the Petitioner and examination of necessary documents, it was revealed that the Petitioner, i.e. Deepa Somaji Palkar and Deepa Santosh Palkar, i.e. the Respondent No.10 are one and the same person and that the Petitioner herself has used the aforesaid names in different forums. We thus, directed the learned APP to place these facts on affidavit. Accordingly, Mr. Avinash Eknath Kaldate, Senior Police Inspector, Ghatkopar Police Station has duly affirmed an affidavit dated 17 th January 2025 before a Notary Public and the same is placed on record. 6. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record. We perused the affidavit of Mr. Avinash Kaldate as well. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit, Mr. Kaldate has averred that the Petitioner submitted application for a home loan to the Marketing Executive of the State Bank of India namely, Shri Deepak Kumar Zha on 24 th February 2015. At the time of submission of form, she submitted her income-tax return and her bank statement of ICICI Bank, Mulund (West). All these documents show her name as Deepa S. Palkar, Deepa Palkar, Deepa Somaji Palkar. Even the photograph on the application form is that of the Petitioner. 7. It is further averred that when the statement of the Petitioner was recorded on 25 th September 2024 pursuant to this Court’s order, she submitted her PAN Card, Aadhaar Card and passport for verification. These documents were self-attested by the Petitioner. Even the photograph on the application form is that of the Petitioner. 7. It is further averred that when the statement of the Petitioner was recorded on 25 th September 2024 pursuant to this Court’s order, she submitted her PAN Card, Aadhaar Card and passport for verification. These documents were self-attested by the Petitioner. The customer application form submitted by the Petitioner was filled as Deepa Santosh Palkar and her father’s name was written as Somaji Sidhram Palkar. Thus, during the course of the investigation, it is revealed that the Petitioner herself, while obtaining loan from the bank has given two different names, namely, Deepa S. Palkar and Deepa Santosh Palkar. The address of the Respondent No. 10 namely, Deepa Santosh Palkar is found to be bogus. It thus transpires that the Petitioner herself submitted documents for obtaining a home loan from SBI in different names. Thus, there is no substance in her grievance and the FIR correctly names her as accused. 8. The aforesaid affidavit is affirmed by Senior Police Inspector, who was vested with the authority to conduct investigation on our orders. The investigation was supervised by Deputy Commissioner of Police of Zone-VII, Mumbai and pursuant to the investigation, the affidavit is filed in the matter. Considering the averments in the affidavit, no ground is made out to consider any of the reliefs. 9. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to grant the relief sought for by the Petitioner. The Petition is accordingly dismissed and disposed off as such. 10. Since the Petition itself is disposed off, nothing survives for consideration in the Interim Application therein and the same is also disposed off. 11. Needless to state, that the Petitioner is at liberty to raise her grievance before the trial Court. 12. All parties to act on an authenticated copy of this Judgment.