Bombay High Court
Manoj S/O Tularamji Bhande vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 6 October, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1
wp320.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Criminal Writ Petition No.320 of 2016
Manoj s/o Tularamji Bhande,
Aged about 29 years,
Occupation - Business,
R/o Vijay Laxmi Pandit Nagar,
Behind Ramna Maroti Temple,
Kharbi Road, Nagpur. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Kamptee,
Tah. Kamptee, District Nagpur.
2. Smt. Chgindhabai Fattuji Gajbhe,
Aged about 55 years,
Occupation - Household.
3. Smt. Bindabai Gulab Gharat,
Aged about 52 years,
Occupation - Household.
Nos.2 and 3, R/o Village
Pandhurna, Tah. Kamptee,
Distt. Nagpur. ...Respondents
Shri M.P. Kariya, Advocate for Petitioner.
Smt. S.S. Jachak, Additional Public Prosecutor for
Respondent No.1.
Shri A.D. Dangore, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2017 01:06:28 :::
2
wp320.16.odt
Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.
th
Dated : 6 October, 2017
Oral Judgment :
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the original owners
of the suit property, which was sold to the petitioner under
the registered sale-deed dated 11-11-2011 for a total
consideration of Rs.60,00,000/-. The respondent Nos.2
and 3 claim that they are in possession of the suit property,
whereas the petitioner claims that he is in possession of the
suit property. In this background, the respondent Nos.2
and 3 have filed Civil Suit No.3382 of 2012, which is pending
in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Nagpur for a
declaration that the sale-deed dated 11-11-2011 is null and
void and not binding upon them.
wp320.16.odt
3. According to the respondent Nos.2 and 3, pages 2
and 4 of the draft sale-deed were replaced. In the draft
sale-deed, there was a reference to four cheques issued in the
name of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 by the petitioner and
those are dishonoured. However, in the pages replaced, it is
shown that the entire amount was paid in cash to the
respondent Nos.2 and 3. Shri Kariya, the learned counsel for
the petitioner, submits that he has produced receipts showing
the payment of Rs.60,00,000/- in cash to the respondent
Nos.2 and 3 on different dates, and it is urged by
Shri Dangore, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2
and 3, that those receipts do not relate to the transaction in
cash, which is the sale-deed dated 11-11-2011. It is urged
that tendering of cheques, which are dishonoured and
showing payment in cash of the consideration, is a mischief
and without consideration, the property got transferred.
4. In the aforesaid background, the prosecution is
initiated against the petitioner for the offences punishable
wp320.16.odt
under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code
vide Crime No.M-1/13 dated 13-6-2013. According to
Shri Kariya for the petitioner, the dispute is purely of a civil
nature, and though the charge-sheet has been filed and the
charge has also been framed, it is an abuse of process of
Court. He has relied upon the following decisions of the
Apex Court as well as of this Court :
1. 1999 Cri.L.J. 598 -
Nageshwar Prasad Singh alias Sinha v. Narayan
Singh and another.
2. AIR 2006 SC 2780 -
M/s. Indian Oil Corporation v. M/s. NEPC India
Ltd. and Ors.
3. AIR 2008 SC 251 -
Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. v. State of
Uttaranchal and Ors.
4. (2015) 8 SCC 293 -
Vesa Holdings Private Limited and another v.
State of Kerala and others.
5. Judgment dated 31-8-2017 of the Division
Bench of this Court [Smt. Vasanti A. Naik and
wp320.16.odt
M.G. Giratkar, JJ.] in Criminal Application
(APL) No.163 of 2017 -
Shri Suresh Gulabrao Choudhary v. State of
Maharashtra, through P.S.O. of Police Station,
Sadar, Dist. Nagpur, and another.
6. Judgment dated 5-9-2017 of the Division
Bench of this Court [Smt. Vasanti A. Naik and
M.G. Giratkar, JJ.] in Criminal Application
(APL) No.501 of 2017 -
Vedprakash alias Appu s/o Chandiram
Wadhwani and another v. The State of
Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer,
Sadar Police Station, Nagpur, and another.
7. Judgment dated 8-9-2017 of the Division
Bench of this Court [Smt. Vasanti A. Naik and
M.G. Giratkar, JJ.] in Criminal Application
(APL) No.180 of 2017 -
Shabbir s/o Suleman Bohra v. State of
Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Gondia City, Gondia, and another.
Shri Karia also submits that the ingredients of the offences
are missing.
5. Keeping in view the stage of the criminal
proceedings and leaving aside the question whether it is
permissible for this Court to entertain this petition after
wp320.16.odt
framing of the charge also, I do not find that it is a fit case
where this Court should exercise the jurisdiction under
Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, or for that
matter under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
A civil suit may have been filed for claiming a declaration,
but the peculiar facts of the case indicate that the petitioner
can be tried even for the offences alleged against him.
Several ways and means adopted by the petitioner creating
obstructions in the trial have failed and the trial is delayed.
In such a situation, I do not find any reason to interfere in
this matter.
6. The petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
7. The Trial Court shall not get influenced by any
observation made in this judgment. However, it shall
expeditiously proceed with the trial. The petitioner shall co-
operate with the Trial Court in expeditious disposal of the
trial. The adjournment on any count at the instance of any
wp320.16.odt
of the parties shall not be on the costs less than Rs.5,000/-
on each occasion, to be paid to the other side.
JUDGE.
Lanjewar
