Girish S/O Padmakar Girdhar vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Pachpaoli ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 12168 Bom

                                                    1              Cri.APL No.440.20 .odt


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


             CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 440 OF 2020

 Girish S/o. Padmakar Girdhar,
 Aged about 32 years, Occ. Business,
 R/o. Plot no.82, Sahakar Nagar,
 Khamla Road, Nagpur.                                              ......APPLICANT

          -----VERSUS-----

 1.     The State of Maharashtra,
        Through Police Station Officer,
        Police Station, Pachpaoli,
        Nagpur, Tah. & Distt. Nagpur.


 2.     Ravishankar @ Purushottam Sahare,
        Aged about 27 years,
        R/o. MIG Qtr. No.2/2, Vaishali Nagar,
        C/o. Dr. Riyaz Ahmed,
        P. S. Pachpaoli, Nagpur.              ......NON-APPLICANTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri Bhushan Dafle, Advocate for the Applicant.
 Shri V. A. Thakare, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Non-applicant No.1.
 Shri M. M. Kalar, Advocate for the Non-applicant No.2.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          CORAM :          V. M. DESHPANDE AND
                           AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATE : 31.08.2021.

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.381/2020 dated 14.07.2020

registered with the non-applicant No.1 - Police Station against the

applicant and others for the offences punishable under Sections

420, 448, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The First Information Report came to be registered

against the applicant and others with the accusations that

agreement to sale dated 25.05.2019 for amount of Rs.33,00,000/-

was executed by Smt. Vasudha Vasudeo Rupde in favour of the

non-applicant No.2. The remaining amount was to be paid at the

time of registration of sale-deed i.e. on 15.10.2019. Smt. Rupde

died on 25.09.2019 and therefore sale-deed could not be

executed. When the non-applicant No.2 went to visit the house

property owned by Smt. Rupde on 29.11.2019, the non-applicant

No.2 was shocked to see accused No.3 - Nilima Jaiswal and other

unknown lady in the house. On enquiry, it was told that the

accused No.3 has taken possession of the said property. It was

told by the applicant and the accused No.3 - Nilima Jaiswal that

deceased Smt. Rupde executed agreement to sale in their favour

on 02.04.2019 for amount of Rs.28,00,000/- and had delivered

possession. The non-applicant No.2 therefore, lodged the First

Information Report against the applicant and others.

5. The applicant has challenged registration of the First

Information Report by way of filing present application. On

07.08.2020, this Court issued notice to the non-applicants. The

non-applicant No.1 in pursuance of the order passed by this Court

filed reply dated 19.10.2020. It is stated in the reply that the

Investigating Agency has recorded statement of four witnesses

which show that the applicant has played vital role in commission

of the offences alleged against him. It is stated that the

Investigating Officer has seized mobile phone of the accused -

Nilima Jaiswal and has also obtained certain documents having

signature of the deceased Smt. Rupde to verify the genuineness of

the signature. It is also stated that the applicant is having criminal

antecedent and the First Information Report No.169/2020 is also

registered against the applicant.

6. We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties.

With the assistance of the learned Advocates for the parties, we

have carefully perused the First Information Report. On perusal of

the First Information Report and the material produced by the

non-applicant No.2, it appears that the applicant herein had filed

Criminal Application (ABA) No. 106/2021. This Court while

rejecting the said application in paragraph No.5, 6 and 7 has

observed as under :

"5. There is more than ample material on record to link the applicant with the crime. The Investigating Officer has obtained the government hand-writing experts opinion which is that the documents on the basis of which the applicant and the co-accused are asserting title, are forged and fabricated and were not executed by deceased Mr. Vasudha Rupde. The statements of witnesses show that the applicant and the other co-accused have formed a crime syndicate and are involved in property grabbing.

6. One of the witnesses, who is a relative of the deceased Mrs. Vasudha Rupde, has graphically described the attempt of the applicant and the other members of the crime syndicate to forcibly evict tenant from a property. The applicant is also facing similar prosecution vide Crime 169/2020.

7. In my considered view, the applicant has not made out any case for exercise of discretion. The attempt to grab property on the basis of forged and fabricated document does not appear to be an isolated incident. There appears to be a crime syndicate which is actively involved in such offences. It would be next to impossible for the Investigating Agency to unearth the various facets of the crime and the activities of the crime syndicate, if the Investigating Agency is deprived of the opportunity of arresting and custodially interrogating the applicant. Considering the propensity to indulge in crime, the possibility of the applicant intimidating the witnesses, cannot be ruled out."

7. On careful consideration of the First Information Report,

it appears that the applicant along with other accused have

illegally taken possession of the property in respect of which an

agreement to sale was executed in favour of the non-applicant

No.2. Prima facie, the allegations against the applicant is that the

applicant along with other accused have prepared forged

documents and forged signature of the deceased Smt. Vasudha

Rupde and on the basis of said documents has taken possession of

the property in dispute.

8. We are of the view that for the purpose of quashing the

First Information Report, it is necessary to consider whether the

allegations in the First Information Report prima facie make out

an offence or not. In our opinion, it is not necessary to scrutinise

the allegations for the purpose of deciding whether such

allegations are to be accepted in the trial. Any action by way of

quashing the First Information Report is an action to be taken at

the threshold before evidence are led in support of the First

Information Report. It is well settled that the inherent power

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of this Court

should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution and

should be exercise sparingly with great care and caution.

9. In our considered view, the allegations made against the

applicant along with the observations made by this Court while

rejecting anticipatory bail application, require that the complete

investigation in relation to the offences against the applicant is

necessary. At this stage, it is not possible to conclude that the

material placed on record taken on its face value makes out no

case for the offences under Sections 420, 448, 467, 468, 471 and

120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Taking over all view of the matter

and the material placed on record, we are satisfied that this is not

a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

10. Hence, Criminal Application is dismissed.

11. Rule is discharged. Pending application(s), if any,

stand(s) disposed of.

                              JUDGE                                        JUDGE




RGurnule