Bombay High Court
Moreshwar S/O. Pandurang ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., ... on 21 August, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
1 Cri.APL No.1085.18-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1085 OF 2018
Moreshwar S/o. Pandurang Mathankar,
Aged about 53 years, Occ. : Agriculturist,
R/o. Vinayak Layout, Tilak Ward, Warora,
Dist. Chandrapur. ......APPLICANT
... VERSUS ...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station - Warora,
District : Chandrapur.
2. Dilip S/o. Suryabhan Bansod,
Aged about 35 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Sahakari Sanstha, Bhadravati,
Dist. : Chandrapur. ......NON-APPLICANTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S. V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the Applicant.
Shri S. S. Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Non-applicant No.1.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 21.08.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
3. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the applicant is challenging registration of the
First Information Report No.626/2018 registered with the
non-applicant No.1 - Police Station for the offences punishable
under Sections 384, 385, 467, 468, 469, 471 of the Indian Penal
Code, Section 39 of the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation)
Act, 2014, Section 69(b) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 and
Section 36 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
4. The First Information Report came to be registered
against the applicant and others with the accusations that the
complainant who was working as Assistant Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, Bhadravati along with his squad and Police Staff had
laid raid on establishment and residence of accused No.1 on
05.04.2018 and after conducting search certain documents were
found in his house in the form of blank cheque, details of
disbursement of loan, original agreement to sale and other
material. On scrutiny of the voluminous documents found with
the accused No.1, the complainant founds that the accused No.1
in collusion with 13 other accused was carrying out illegal
business of money lending and they have cheated agriculturist by
making false and fabricated documents.
The applicant has therefore, challenged the registration
of the First Information Report before this Court by way of present
applicant.
5. This Court on 25.09.2019, issued notice to the non-
applicants. The non-applicant No.1 has filed reply stating that
during the investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded
statement of witnesses which shows that the accused No.1 in
collusion with other co-accused is carrying out illegal money
lending business and lend money to the witnesses after taking the
mortgage land with them and without intimating witnesses
fraudulently and dishonestly sold out the agricultural land to
co-accused including the applicant and also demarcating layouts
sold plots in the name of accused. The reply specifically states
that insofar as the present applicant is concerned, agreement to
sale and delivery of possession of 9 plots of Mouza Chinora is in
the name of present applicant. It is also stated that the deed of
agreement of sale of agricultural land of Mouza Raipur, District
Yavatmal has been executed by one Sayyad Habib Shah in the
name of present applicant, blank stamp paper of Rs.100/- each in
the name of the present applicant, the agreement to sale of
agricultural land situated at Mouza Khanji, Tahasil, Warora,
District Yavatmal in the name of present applicant, 7/12 extract of
agricultural land admeasuring 54.2 H.R. were seized by the
Authorized Officer during search of residence of the accused No.1.
The Investigating Officer recorded statement of applicant in
question and answer form, wherein he stated that he had neither
kept sale deed in his name in the house of the accused No.1 nor he
had purchased agricultural land at Warora or elsewhere in his
name. It is stated that there is sufficient material against the
applicant.
6. We have carefully considered the allegations in the First
information Report and the reply filed by the Investigating Agency.
On careful consideration of the First Information Report along
with the reply filed by the non-applicant No.1, we are of the view
that the applicant has failed to make out the case for quashing the
First Information Report. On consideration of material and the
reply filed by the Investigating Agency, we are of the opinion that
prima facie ingredients of the offences alleged against the
applicant are fulfilled. In our opinion, the Investigating Agency
needs to be given an opportunity to investigate into allegations
against the applicant and other accused. The Hon'ble Apex Court
has time and again observed that the extra-ordinary power under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be
exercised sparingly and with great cautious. The inherent power
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ought not to
be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. It is not necessary
to scrutinise the allegations for the purpose of deciding whether
such allegations which are likely to be accepted in the trial. For
quashing of the First Information Report, at its threshold, it is not
permissible to consider the truth or otherwise of the allegations
against the accused.
7. In our considered view, it is not possible, at this stage, to
stifle the investigation in relation to allegations against the
applicant of being illegally engaged in money lending business.
Taking overall view of the matter, we are satisfied that this is not a
fit case to exercise power under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
8. Hence, the Criminal Application is dismissed.
9. Rule is discharged. Pending application(s), if any,
stand(s) disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
RGurnule
