Juman Hasan Hilabee vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 9066 Bom

                                      (1)                         cri. appln 6412.17

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.  6412 OF 2017

      Juman Hasan Hilabee, 
      Age: 35 years, Occ.: Businessman,
      R/o Indra Nagar, Garkheda Parisar,
      Aurangabad.                                      ...APPLICANT

                       Versus

1.    The State of Maharashtra                    
      Through P.I., Jawahar Colony 
      Police Station, Aurangabad.

2.    Aadesh S/o Pradeep Kummar Lohade,
      Age: 28 years, Occ.: Businessman,
      R/o Ranjangaon, Tal. Gangapur,
      Aurangabad.                                      ... RESPONDENTS

                                    with
                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.  6414 OF 2017

1.    Juman Hasan Hilabee, 
      Age: 35 years, Occ.: Businessman,
      R/o Indra Nagar, Garkheda Parisar,
      Aurangabad.                                        

2.    Saba Hasan Hilabee, 
      Age: Major, Occ.: Housewive,
      R/o As above. 

3.    Agban Khaled Chous, 
      Age: Major, Occ.: Unemployed,
      R/o As above.                                    ...APPLICANTS




     ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2017             ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2017 00:45:30 :::
                                              (2)                                cri. appln 6412.17

                       Versus

1.     The State of Maharashtra                                 

2.     Aasha Pradeep Kummar Lohade,
       Age: 50 years, Occ.: Business,
       R/o Shenpunji Ranjangaon, 
       Tal. Gangapur,
       Dist. Aurangabad.                                    ... RESPONDENTS

                                    -----
Mr. Pathan Hasrat Khan, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mrs. D.S. Jape, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr. M.N. Shaikh, Advocate for Respondent no.2.
                                    -----

                                     CORAM :  S.S. SHINDE &
                                                MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 27.11.2017

JUDGMENT: (Per Mangesh S. Patil, J.)

. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

parties the matter is heard finally.

2. These are applications filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaints which have resulted in

registration of crimes, bearing F.I.R. No. 87/2017 for the offence punishable

under Section 452, 504, 506 and F.I.R. No. 249/2017 for the offence

punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal

(3) cri. appln 6412.17

Code both of which are registered with Jawahar Nagar Police Station,

Aurangabad. The former is lodged at the instance of one Aadesh Pradeep

Kumar Lohade who is respondent no. 2 in Criminal Application no.

6412/2017 and the other is lodged at the instance of his mother Asha Pradeep

Kumar Lohade. Since the applicants and the original informants have reached

to an amicable settlement, the applicants and the respondent no. 2 are

seeking quashment of the crimes on the ground that the continuation of the

proceedings would be an exercise in futility.

3. We have heard the learned Advocate for the applicants as also the

learned Advocate for respondent no.2. They have referred to the decisions in

the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another; 2012 (10) SCC

303 and in the case of Narinder Singh & Others V/s. State of Punjab and

Anr; (2014) 6 SCC 466, as also the Division Bench decisions of this Court in

the case of Jagdish Suresh Shirsath V/s. State of Maharashtra and Anr. in

Criminal Application No. 1934 of 2017 dated 03.05.2017 and in the case

of Mukesh Baburao Pawar and Ors. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and

Anr. in Criminal Application No. 6093 of 2013 dated 24.09.2014.

According to the learned Advocates for the parties, since the dispute was

(4) cri. appln 6412.17

essentially of civil nature and as the parties have arrived at an amicable

settlement, it would be an exercise in futility, if the prosecution is allowed to

go ahead.

4. In F.I.R. No. 87/2017 it has been specifically alleged that the

mother of the informant had purchased the plot, wherein, three rooms have

been erected. Her relative was staying in the premises, however, he died a

couple of months before lodging the complaint and when she went to the

house, she noticed that the accused i.e. applicant in Criminal Application no.

6412 of 2017 was occupying the house. On being asked as to what right he

had to occupy the premises he had abused and threatened the informant. The

F.I.R. was registered for the offence punishable under Section 452, 504, 506 of

the Indian Penal Code.

5. The other F.I.R. bearing no. 249/2017 was registered when the

mother of the informant in the earlier complaint lodged information alleging

that after purchasing the very same premises they had let it to a person on

monthly rent. However, the applicants in Criminal Application no. 6414 of

2017 forcibly evicted the tenant. When she inquired with them about such

eviction they claimed to have purchased the premises and pointed out the

(5) cri. appln 6412.17

forged documents. When she and her husband asserted their right to the

premises they threatened and abused them. On the basis of such complaint

the F.I.R. was registered for the offences punishable under Section 420, 467,

468, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. The learned A.P.P. submitted that since the allegations in the F.I.R.

are serious, the dispute is not personal alone and cannot be quashed.

According to the learned A.P.P., the offence of preparing false documents and

using them for the purpose of cheating are serious offence affecting public

policy. Therefore, simply because the parties have amicably settled the matter

that would not take these cases out of the purview of criminal liability and

allowing such crimes to be quashed when the legislature had not made them

compoundable would be endorsing illegality.

7. We have carefully examined the peculiar facts and circumstances

of these matters. Apparently, the informants are claiming to have purchased

the premises but there are no documents of title recognisable in law. In the

memo of compromise, it is mentioned that one Radhakisan Upadhye was the

original owner of the premises, which he had mortgaged with Juman Hasan

Hilabee who happens to be the applicant in Criminal Application no. 6412 of

(6) cri. appln 6412.17

2017, by way of security of an amount of Rupees Six Lakhs. Now by virtue of

this compromise the original informant never apparently agreed to clear the

dues and in lieu thereof the applicant in Criminal Application no. 6412 of

2017 has acknowledged to have received the amount and has handed over the

possession of the premises to the informants. Conspicuously, even this

document styled as mortgage deed is unregistered. There are no documents

of title available with either of the parties to prima facie demonstrate their

validity and legal title to the premises. All these circumstances, clearly makes

out a very murkier state of affairs. Complaints are lodged for serious offences

which are not compoundable and now the huge amount is being paid

apparently under the pretext of the repayment of loan secured by the

mortgage of the premises without there being a registered deed of mortgage,

which is compulsorily registrable under relevant law .

8. It is necessary to note that it has been laid down in the case of

Gian Singh and Narinder Singh (supra) that in matters which are not

compoundable, the F.I.R. can be quashed unless it is not repugnant to the

public policy. In our considered view, above-mentioned circumstances clearly

show that the conduct of the parties is not bona fide and transactions which

(7) cri. appln 6412.17

are not legally acceptable are sought to be done circuitously. We are also

apprehensive of the fact that by endorsing such permission the High Court

would be endorsing illegal transactions and we do not wish to do that.

9. In the result, both the criminal applications are liable to be

rejected.

10. The applications are rejected. The rule is discharged.

     [MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]                                   [S. S. SHINDE, J.]




KAKADE