Bombay High Court
Anjali Vasantrao Deshmukh And Anr vs The State Of Mah And Anr on 29 June, 2016
Bench: A.V. Nirgude
(1) crwp526.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 526 OF 2012
1. Anjali d/o Vasantrao Deshmukh ...Petitioners
Age 45 years, Occ. Service
R/o. Wazirabad, Nanded
2. Palavi Satish Pawar
Age 27 years, Occ. Medical practitioner
R/o. Babanagar, Nanded
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondents
(Copy served on the Public prosecutor
High court, Bench at Aurangabad)
2. Baburao s/o Ambadasrao Wadgaonkar
Age 62 years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Om Nagar, Wajegaon
Tq. and district Nanded
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Sharma Vijay
APP for Respondents: Mr. A.R. Borulkar,
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. P.R. Adkine (absent)
CORAM : A. V. NIRGUDE &
V. K. JADHAV, JJ.
DATED : 29th JUNE, 2016
(2) crwp526.12
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER : A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] :-
1. The petitioners are accused Nos. 5 and 6 in
crime No. 211 of 2010 registered at Nanded Rural Police
Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420,
468, 471, 447 r.w. 34 of I.P.C.
2. The complainant alleged that he and others were
members of a proposed co-operative hosing society for
which a piece of land was purchased at village Vasarani
near Nanded city. A person by name Shivram Mistri was
appointed as chief promoter of the said proposed society.
The land was purchased in his name way back in the year
1980-81. Shivram died on 25.8.2005. Thereafter, his wife
and son applied to the revenue authorities seeking
mutation of the land in their names. It was granted to
them. They thereafter, started representing that they are
owners of the land. The land was then purchased by the
present petitioners along with others. Thereafter, the
complainant and others filed a Civil Suit in the year
2007 asserting that the land could not have been
purchased by the petitioners and others and for some
other relief.
3. The complaint was filed on 11.6.2010 in which it
is stated that the petitioners and others have
(3) crwp526.12
manipulated the revenue record and have obtained
fraudulent sale deed of the land in their favour. It was
also alleged that other accused tried to take possession
of the land forcibly but such attempt was foiled.
4. The petitioners are before us for getting the
complaint as well as criminal case quashed. We have
permitted to amend the petition for challenging the
charge-sheet also. As said above, the complaint alleged
that the petitioners and their vendors forged the land
record and then transferred the land and caused loss to
them. The first part of the allegation is that the
petitioners colluded with their vendors to get their
vendors' name mutated in land record. The mutation of
land record was in-deed an official act and the same
cannot be an act of forgery. Much less an outsider like
the petitioners or for that matter the vendors would be
able to forge any document which is part of land record.
Forging land record is a serious allegation and can be
made at the most against those who have such records in
their custody.
5. Though the petitioners claimed that they are
bonafide purchasers, for the sake of complaint we are
inclined to assume that the petitioners were aware that
their vendors did not have good title. The land was
(4) crwp526.12
purchased for and on behalf of a proposed co-operative
housing society and yet they entered into the
transaction. Whether such an act would amount to an
offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code? The
answer is in negative. The petitioners took risk of
purchasing a piece of land from persons who did not have
clear title. So, if their vendors' title is not clear,
they would not get a clear title. For the sake of the
complaint, we assume that the complainants have better
title. The transaction would not affect that title. The
person having such title cannot be cheated by collusion
of two persons having no title to the property. The
solution to the problem was already found in 2007. A
suit for title was filed and in such a suit the
complainant would be able to vindicate their case. In
such situation, filing of complaint in 2010 was not only
after thought but was an act in futility.
6. In addition to this, there is no allegation
against the petitioners that they tried to enter the land
forcibly. There is one more aspect of this case, which is
required to be mentioned in the order that the present
petitioners and other accused had earlier filed writ
petition No.861 of 2010 in which the learned Single Judge
of this Court had directed the police not to file charge
sheet against the present petitioners. Despite the said
(5) crwp526.12
order, the charge sheet was filed. This writ petition was
admitted on 08.10.2014.
7. Hence, the writ petition is allowed in terms of
prayer clause "A" and disposed of.
8. Rule made absolute in the above terms.
[V.K. JADHAV,J.] [A.V.NIRGUDE,J.]
snk/2016/JUN16/crwp526.12
