Shri. Suresh Gulabrao Choudhary vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6630 Bom

                                         1                                      judg.apl 163.17.odt

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, 
                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                 Criminal Application (APL) No. 163 of 2017

Shri Suresh Gulabrao Choudhary, 
Aged about 25 years, Occ. Business, 
R/o Ayodhya Nagar, Near Sai Mandir, 
Nagpur.                                                                       .... Applicant

      //  Versus //

(1) State of Maharashtra,
      Through P.S.O. of Police Station
      Sadar, Dist. Nagpur. 

(2) Smt. Sumanbai Santoshrao Rode,
      Aged about 67 years, Occ. Housewife, 
      R/o. Bobde's Wada, Santra Market Road, 
      Kalmeshwar, Tah Kalmeshwar,
      Distt Nagpur.                                     .... Non-applicants

Shri S. S. Sitani, Advocate for the applicant 
Shri A. M. Joshi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant no. 1
Shri A. K. Waghmare, Advocate for the non-applicant no. 2
                                                             
                                          CORAM      : SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                      M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.

DATE : 31-08-2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)

The criminal application is admitted and heard finally at the

stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

By this criminal application, the applicant seeks for the

quashing and setting aside of FIR No. 154/2015 registered against the

applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 and 34 of

.....2/-

                                            2                                      judg.apl 163.17.odt

the Penal Code.

The non-applicant no. 2 had lodged a report in the Police

Station on 5-5-2015 alleging therein that she and her two brothers were

the owners and possessors of 1.50 HR of land in Dighori, Umred Road,

Nagpur. It is alleged in the complaint that out of 1.50 HR of land, 1.20

HR land was sold to the applicant herein and 0.30 HR of land was

retained by the non-applicant no. 2 and her two brothers. It is alleged in

the FIR that the applicant however, claimed that he had purchased the

entire land i.e. 1.50 HR land. It is alleged in the First Information Report

that the non-applicant no. 2 had filed a suit against her brothers for

partition of 0.30 HR of land. It is further alleged that the Talathi, the

Mandal Adhikari, the applicant and the two brothers of the non-applicant

no. 2 however, conspired to prepare the 7/12 extract showing that the

entire land was purchased by the applicant. According to the non-

applicant no. 2, the Talathi, the Mandal Adhikari, the applicant and her

two brothers have cheated the non-applicant no. 2 and have deprived

her of her rightful share in 0.30 HR of land.

Shri Sitani, the learned counsel for the applicant states that

on a reading of the FIR it is clear that the allegations pertain to the

dispute in respect of the title to the property i.e. 0.30 HR of land. It is

.....3/-

3 judg.apl 163.17.odt

stated that a civil suit is filed by the non-applicant no. 2 against her two

brothers for partition of 0.30 HR of land. It is stated that if the non-

applicant no. 2 is aggrieved by the recording of the name of the applicant

in the revenue records by the Tahsildar, the non-applicant no. 2 can as

well challenge the said order in the proceedings under the provisions of

the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. It is stated that in view of the well

settled position of law that the FIR could not be registered in matters

pertaining to a civil dispute, the FIR is liable to be quashed and set aside

as the same is filed for pressurising the applicant.

Shri Joshi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the non-applicant no. 1 states that since it is the case of

the non-applicant no. 2 that she was cheated by the Talathi, the Mandal

Adhikari, the applicant and her two brothers, the FIR was registered

against all the five persons. It is stated that on the basis of the said

report, the FIR was registered.

Shri Waghmare, the learned counsel for the non-applicant

no. 2 submitted that the Talathi, the Mandal Adhikari, the applicant and

the two brothers of the non-applicant no. 2 had cheated the non-

applicant no. 2 by helping in recording the name of the applicant in the

revenue records in respect of 0.30 HR of land on which the non-applicant

.....4/-

4 judg.apl 163.17.odt

no. 2 and her two brothers had a right. It is stated that though only 1.20

HR of land was purchased by the applicant, in the revenue records, the

name of the applicant was recorded in respect of remaining 0.30 HR of

land which was not sold to him. It is submitted that the FIR was

registered against the applicant in the year 2015 and the criminal

application is belatedly filed on 20-3-2017. It is submitted that after the

FIR was registered, the Tahsildar has again corrected the record and

inserted the name of the non-applicant no. 2 and her two brothers in

respect of remaining 0.30 HR of land.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a

perusal of the First Information Report, it appears that the dispute in

respect of 0.30 HR of land is of civil nature. A civil suit is already filed by

the non-applicant no. 2 against her two brothers for partition of 0.30 HR

of land that was allegedly retained by the non-applicant no. 2 and her

two brothers. Though according to the non-applicant no. 2, 1.20 HR of

land is sold to the applicant, however, in the statements recorded by the

police, the applicant and the brothers of the non-applicant no. 2 have

stated that entire 1.50 HR of land was purchased by the applicant. The

dispute in regard to 0.30 HR of land could be decided by the civil suit.

The second appeal arising out of the civil suit filed by the non-applicant

no. 2 is still pending. If the non-applicant no. 2 was aggrieved by the

.....5/-

5 judg.apl 163.17.odt

order of the Tahsildar, of recording the name of the applicant in the

revenue records, the remedy available to the non-applicant no. 2 was to

file an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer under the Maharashtra

Land Revenue Code. However, the non-applicant no. 1 wrongfully

registered the First Information Report against the Talathi, the Circle

Officer, the applicant and the two brothers of the non-applicant no. 2

without considering that the dispute between the parties was of civil

nature. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again that First

Information Reports should not be registered in disputes of civil nature

during the pendency of civil cases, with a view to pressurise the accused.

It would be worthwhile to refer to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court reported in AIR 2008 SC 251 and 1999 Cri. L.J. 598 in this

regard.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the criminal application is

allowed. The First Information Report registered against the applicant

bearing No. 154/2015 alleging commission of offences punishable under

Section 420, 409 and 34 of the Penal Code is hereby quashed and set

aside. Order accordingly.

                        JUDGE                                         JUDGE

wasnik


                                                                                           ...../-