Bombay High Court
Revansiddh Mahadevayya Hiremath vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 July, 2017
Bench: R.M. Borde
{1}
crappln54017.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.540 OF 2017
01 Revansiddh Mahadevayya Hiremath,
age: 40 years, Occ: service/social
work, R/o Bardapur, Tq. Ambajogai,
District Beed.
02 Rudramani Mahadevayya Hiremath,
age: 36 years, Occ: and r/o as above.
03 Satish Raosaheb Madne,
age: 40 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Fardapur Village, Tq.Renapur,
District Latur.
04 Kerba Bhimrao Suryawanshi
(Baban Bhimrao Survase),
age: 42 years, Occ: Labour,
R/o Bardapur, Tq. Ambajogai,
District Beed.
05 Ramling Shivdas Chaudhari,
(Ram Shivdas Chaudhari),
age: 38 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Mangalwar Peth, Ambajogai.
06 Kailash Pralhad Karpude,
age: 40 years, Occ: Driver,
R/o Bardapur, Tq.Ambajogai.
07 Shrihari Nagorao Suryawanshi,
(Shrihari Nagorao Survase),
age: 45 years, Occ: Agril.,
R/o as above. Petitioners
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station,
Bardapur, Tq. Ambajogai,
District Beed.
::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:18:22 :::
{2}
crappln54017.odt
02 Sachin Jagannath Agrawal,
age: 32 years, Occ: service,
R/o Bardapur, now at Janta Lodge,
Prashant Nagar, Ambajogai,
District Beed. Respondents
Mr.V.V.Bhavthankar, advocate for applicants.
Mr.S.R.Yadav Lonikar, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1.
Mr.S.S.Thombre, advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE AND
A.M.DHAVALE, JJ.
DATE : 06th July, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.) :
1 Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.
2 The applicants are praying to quash criminal
proceedings initiated against them in pursuance to lodging of First
Information Report bearing Crime No.06/2017, registered with
Police Station Bardapur, Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed, for the
offences punishable under Sections 395, 506 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code.
3 It is alleged in the First Information Report lodged by
Respondent No.2-complainant that the applicants are instrumental
in taking away 54 bags of soyabeen and live stock. The allegations
recorded in the First Information Report need not be reproduced in
detail. The proceeding initiated deserves to be quashed since those
arise out of civil disputes pending between the parties and in those
civil proceedings a categorical finding has been recorded in respect
of physical possession of Shri Guru Mahaling Swami Math,
{3}
crappln54017.odt
Bardapur.
4 Applicants are the persons connected with aforesaid
Math. It is contended by the applicants that an agreement to sell
was executed by father of Respondent No.2 on 29.06.1990 agreeing
to sell the agricultural property belonging to him in favour of the
Trust. The possession of the property was handed over at the time
of execution of registered agreement to sell.
5 It is further pointed out that since father of
Respondent No.2 failed to execute sale deed, a suit bearing R.C.S.
No.24/2000 was instituted by the Trust against father of
respondent no.2 claiming specific performance of contract. The
suit was contested by father of respondent no.2 and issue in
respect of possession of the Trust was framed and a categorical
finding has been recorded by the Civil Court that the Trust has
been handed over possession of the property at the time of
execution of registered agreement to sell. The Civil Court, however,
partly decreed the suit and granted decree of refund of earnest
money in favour of the Trust by judgment and decree dated
07.10.2006 instead of granting decree of specific performance of
contract.
6 Two separate appeals were preferred by the Trust as
well as by the father of respondent no.2 challenging judgment and
decree passed by the trial Court. The appeal preferred by the
Trust bearing R.C.A. No.83/2006 came to be allowed, whereas,
appeal presented by father of respondent no.2 bearing R.C.A.
No.82/2006, came to be dismissed. The first appellate court
{4}
crappln54017.odt
granted decree of specific performance of contract in favour of the
Trust, whereas, appeal presented by the father of respondent no.2
came to be dismissed. It is informed that there are two Second
Appeals presented by father of respondent no.2, however, those
appeals have not yet been admitted.
7 It is also pointed out that in the mean time, heirs of
respondent no.2 instituted a suit bearing R.C.S. No.138/99
claiming decree of partition of agricultural property including the
properties sold in favour of the Trust. Surprisingly, in the suit
presented by heirs of father of respondent no.2, claiming decree of
partition, father of respondent no.2 remained absent and the suit
proceeded ex parte against him. The trial Court decreed the suit
and declared that the registered document of agreement to sell is
not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. It is informed that an
appeal has been preferred by the Trust challenging decree of the
trial Court, being R.C.A. No.63/2007. The appeal has already been
decided on 01.10.2006 and a decree of possession of the suit
property has been awarded by the first trial Court. The Trust has
been directed to hand over possession of the suit property to the
plaintiffs within two months from the date of decree. It is informed
that against said judgment and decree passed by the appellate
Court in R.C.A. No.63/2007, a Second Appeal has been presented
by the Trust and same is stated to be pending. While dealing with
Civil Application No.15425/2016 in S.A. No.813/2016 presented by
the Trust, the learned Single Judge has observed that, "in the
circumstances, possession, if not already taken by following due
process of law, would not be delivered to decree holder or person
claiming through them. There is no dispute that no proceeding for
{5}
crappln54017.odt
execution has been initiated by the decree holder, as such,
question of delivery of possession does not arise.
8 In the circumstances, it is more than clear that
grievance raised by the complainant in the complaint is
predominantly of civil nature since there are various litigations
pending between the parties before the Civil Court in respect of
entitlement of the parties in relation to the suit property. The
complaint lodged by the complainant is an outcome of civil dispute
pending between the parties. Apart from this, it is clear on prima
facie consideration of the judgments delivered in various
proceedings, by the Civil Courts that the Trust appears to be in
possession of the property and is cultivating the property since the
date of execution of agreement to sell and possession of the
property has not been taken over by the complainant or any other
person in observance of due procedure prescribed in law.
9 In this view of the matter, criminal proceeding initiated
by respondent no.2 against applicants, being Crime No.06/2017,
registered with Police Station Bardapur, Tq. Ambajogai, District
Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 506 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, deserves to be quashed
and same is accordingly quashed.
10 Rule is made absolute to the extent above.
A.M.DHAVALE R.M.BORDE
JUDGE JUDGE
adb/crappln54017
