Bombay High Court
Prabhudas Vithuji Chikate vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 5 March, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
APL 456..15-1.odt 1
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 456 OF 2015
Prabhudas Vithuji Chikate,
Aged 63 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Bawane Plot Warora,
Tq.Warora, District Chandrapur. APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Wani, Tq. Wani, District Yavatmal.
2. Pundlik Mahadeo Khonde,
Aged 74 years, Occ :Agriculturist,
R/o Murdhoni, NON-APPLICANTS
Tq. Wani, District Yavatmal.
Ms. Falguni Badani, Advocate h/f Shri S.V.Sirpurkar, Advocate for
the applicant.
Shri T.A.Mirza, APP for the non-applicant no.1.
None for the non-applicant no.2.
....
CORAM: Z. A. HAQ AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED: 5.3.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) :
1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has challenged registration
of the First Information Report No.77/2015 registered with the non-
applicant no.1 - Police Station for offence punishable under Section
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2021 06:17:35 :::
APL 456..15-1.odt 2
420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The First Information Report came to be registered
against the applicant with the accusations that the applicant
alongwith others got executed Sale-deed in respect of Gat No.64
admeasuring 1 H. 82 R of the land of the non-applicant no.2 for an
amount of Rs.1,50,000/- which was received by other accused as
loan and in return got Sale-deed of agricultural land of the non-
applicant no.2 in his favour. It is alleged that since the non-applicant
no.2 was in need of money, the accused no.4 assured him financial
help and the accused no.2 told the non-applicant no.2 that the
applicant is his partner. It is further alleged that the accused no.2
told the non-applicant no.2 that he will receive an amount of Rs.
1,50,000/- from the accused no.2 and the non-applicant no.2 will
have to pay interest @ 2% but as security. The non-applicant no.2
will have to execute mortgage deed of his agricultural land and
accordingly, he executed the document. But, subsequently the non-
applicant realised that the document executed by him was Sale-
deed executed in favour of the applicant.
3. The applicant has, therefore, filed present application
challenging registration of the First Information Report.
4. On 17.6.2015, this Court issued notice to the non-
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2021 06:17:35 :::
APL 456..15-1.odt 3
applicants and directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against
the applicant. On 16.03.2016, this Court issued Rule.
5. The non-applicant no.1, in pursuance of the notice
issued by this Court, filed reply stating that the applicant got
executed sale-deed in his favour by portraying to the non-applicant
no.2 that mortgage-deed was to be executed in favour of the
applicant no.1. It is only when the non-applicant no.2 realised about
the document, he lodged report against the applicant no.1 and
others.
6. The non-applicant no.2 has filed written submissions
and has stated that the applicant no.1 got executed Sale-deed in his
favour by portraying to the non-applicant no.2 that mortgage-deed
is being executed in favour of the applicant no.1.
7. We have carefully considered the allegations in the First
Information Report and it appears that by registered Sale-deed
dated 22.3.2013, the non-applicant no.2 has executed Sale-deed of
his property in favour of the applicant no.1. The non-applicant no.2
has also filed Civil Suit bearing Special Civil Suit No.15/2014
seeking declaration that the Sale-deed executed in favour of the
applicant dated 22.3.2013 be declared as null and void and
injunction not to disturb possession of the non-applicant no.2. The
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2021 06:17:35 :::
APL 456..15-1.odt 4
said suit is pending.
8. The document of Sale-deed is registered under the
provisions of the Indian Registration Act and the non-applicant no.2
has already filed Special Civil Suit seeking declaration that the
Sale-deed executed in favour of the applicant no.1 be declared as
void. The non-applicant no.2 has not denied his signature on the
Sale-deed, we are, therefore, satisfied that the dispute between the
applicant and the non-applicant no.2 is essentially a Civil dispute,
which would be decided in Special Civil Suit No.15/2014 filed by
the non-applicant no.2 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Kelapur. We are, therefore, satisfied that registration of the First
Information Report against the applicant amount to abuse of
process of the Court. We, therefore, pass the following order:
ORDER
First Information Report No.77/2015 filed by the non-
applicant no.1 Police Station for offence punishable under Section
420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and
set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
Ambulkar
