Nagpur: In a major relief to a Nagpur-based doctor, the Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench has quashed an FIR filed in connection with a ₹5 crore pharmacy investment dispute, ruling that the issue is civil in nature and does not justify criminal proceedings.
The case involved Dr. Sameer Chaubey, who had entered into a business arrangement with a group of investors to operate a pharmacy within his hospital premises. As per the agreement signed in June 2019, the investors deposited over ₹5 crore with expectations of monthly returns between ₹60 lakh and ₹90 lakh.
The complainant alleged that the promised business projections were not met and accused the doctor of allowing a competing pharmacy within the same premises, leading to financial losses. It was also alleged that the invested amount was not returned and that threats were issued when repayment was demanded. Based on these claims, an FIR was registered at Sitabuldi Police Station under Sections 420, 406, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Gold Rate
Apr 24 2026 - Time 10.30Hrs
During the hearing, the High Court examined the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and found that the dispute arose from a contractual agreement between the parties. Justice Vrushali V. Joshi observed that there was no evidence to suggest fraudulent intent at the beginning of the transaction, which is essential to establish criminal charges such as cheating.
The Court also noted that a civil suit related to the same dispute is already pending before the appropriate court. Additionally, an earlier complaint on the same matter had been closed by the police, citing its civil nature, yet a fresh FIR was later registered.
In its observations, the Court stated that the use of criminal law in such cases appears to be an attempt to pressure the opposing party. It reiterated that a breach of contract alone does not amount to a criminal offence unless there is clear evidence of deception from the outset.
Allowing the application, the High Court quashed FIR No. 0068/2026 registered at Sitabuldi Police Station against the doctor. However, the Court directed him to deposit ₹25,000 as costs with the Public Welfare Account within two weeks.
