Anil Tryambak Kohade And Others vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 387 Bom

                                           1                  APL513-15.odt         



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                           
                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                   
                 CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 513/2015
                                   ...


    1. Anil Tryambak Kohade,




                                                  
       Aged about 37 years,
       Occupation : Business,

    2. Smt. Suman Tryambak Kohade,
       Aged about 67 years,




                                               
       Occupation : Household,

    3. Sanjay Tryambak Kohade,
       Aged about 42 years,
                             
       Occ.
                            
    4. Moreshwar Tryamak Kohade,
       Aged about 43 years, Occ.

    All R/o Rajaram Palace,
      

    Kachore Lawn, Manish Nagar, '
    Nagpur.                                       ..             APPLICANTS
   



                                   .. Versus ..





    1. State of Maharashtra,
       through Police Station Officer,
       Ranapratap Nagar Police Station,
       Nagpur.

    2. Mr. Dattatraya Madhusudan





       Khanzode, R/o C/o Mangaldeep
       Sabhagruh, Central Excise
       Employees Colony,
       Chhatrapati Square, Wardha Road,
       Nagpur.                                    ..        NON-APPLICANTS



    Mr. S.D. Deoras, Advocate for Applicants.
    Mr. M.J. Khan, APP for Non-applicant No.1.
    Mr. Rajnish Vyas, Advocate for Non-applicant no.2.
                         ....


    ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2016                   ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:04:05 :::
                                     2                          APL513-15.odt         




                  CORAM : B.R. Gavai & A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.

DATED : March 07, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT (per B.R. Gavai, J. )

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The present application has been filed praying for

quashing and setting aside the first information report No. M-1/2015

lodged with respondent no.1.

3. Heard Mr. S.D. Deoras, learned counsel for the applicants,

Mr. M.J. Khan, learned APP for non-applicant no.1 and Mr. Rajnish

Vyas, learned counsel for non-applicant no.2.

4. The first information report is lodged on the basis of the

directions issued by the learned Magistrate vide order dated

10.03.2015. The order has been passed pursuant to the application

filed by the present non-applicant no.2 under Section 156(3) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. It is the contention of non-applicant

no.2 who is Member of the Central Excise Employees' Co-operative

Housing Society that the applicants have forged a sale deed

executed by one Vishramnagar Co-operative Housing Society in

favour of Trimbak Kohade, who is the father of applicant Nos. 1,3

3 APL513-15.odt

and 4 and husband of applicant no.2.

5. Mr. Vyas, learned counsel for non-applicant no.2 submits

that when originally in the sale deed the khasra number was written

as 54/2, the mentioning of Kh. No.54/4 in the relinquishment deed

dated 21.12.2009 executed in favour of applicant no.1 on one hand

and the applicant Nos. 2 to 4 on the other hand creates a serious

doubt regarding the conduct of the applicants. It is contended that

the same has been done so as to grab the property of the Central

Excise Employees Co-operative Housing Society.

6. We find that the contention is de hors substance. The

perusal of the application under Section 156 (3) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure itself would reveal that it is the contention of

non-applicant no.2 that the property owned by the applicants is in

Kh. No.54/2 and Kh. No. 54/4 was written in order to grab the

property of the Central Excise Employees Co-operative Housing

Society.

7. In that view of the matter, we do not find as to how non-

applicant no.2 could be said to have any grievance with regard to

mention of Kh. No. 54/4 in the relinquishment deed dated

21.12.2009. It appears that the applicants bona fide knowing that

the actual khasra number is 54/4, have mentioned the same in the

relinquishment deed. It however, appears that after the Nagpur

4 APL513-15.odt

Improvement Trust has brought to the notice of the applicants vide

communication dated 25.09.2013 that in the original sale deed

executed in favour of Tryambak Kohade by Vishramnagar

Cooperative Housing Society, khasra number was erroneously

mentioned as 54/2, it was found necessary to get the correction

deed executed from the society.

8. In that view of the matter, we do not find that there is

any substance in the grievance as raised by non-applicant no.2. We

find that the initiation of the criminal proceedings is nothing but an

abuse of process of law.

9. In the result, Criminal Application No.513 of 2015 is

allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate as

well as the subsequent registration of the first information report is

quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid

terms.

         (A.S. Chandurkar, J. )                (B.R. Gavai, J.)
                                        ...


    halwai/p.s.