Bombay High Court
Vinod S/O. Yogendra Singh Jurel ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., ... on 17 September, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
Judgment 1 apl1124.18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1124/2018
1] Vinod S/o Yogendra Singh Jurel,
Aged about 42 years, Occ. Business,
2] Bhawna W/o Vinod Jurel,
Aged about 41years, Occ. Business,
Both 1 & 2 R/o. Panchayat Samiti Colony,
Shastri Ward, Tah. & District Gondia
.... APPLICANT(S)
// VERSUS //
1] State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O., Ram Nagar,
Tah. & District Gondia
2] Ashok S/o Nathhuji Sawarkar,
Aged about 53 years, Occ. Service,
(Police Constable)
3] Anmol S/o Ashok Sawarkar,
Aged about 28 years, Occ. Business,
Both 2 & 3 R/o. New Laxmi Nagar,
Manoharbhai Ward, Ram Nagar, Gondia
Tah. & District Gondia
.... NON-APPLICANT(S)
ANSARI
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 04:59:52 :::
Judgment 2 apl1124.18.odt
*******************************************************************
Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, Advocate for the applicant(s)
Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for the non-applicant/State
Shri A. Sharma, Advocate for the non-applicant no. 2
*******************************************************************
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
SEPTEMBER 17, 2021
JUDGMENT : (PER:- AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)
1] Heard.
2] RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3] By this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the applicants are challenging registration of the
F.I.R. No. 197/2017 dated 08/06/2017 registered with the non-applicant
no. 1 - Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420,
468, 471, 506B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4] The first information report came to be registered against the
applicants with the accusations that the applicants wrongly measured
Khasra Nos. 622/2 & 623/1 and have shown the plots belonging to the
ANSARI
Judgment 3 apl1124.18.odt
complainant as owned by them. It is alleged that the present applicants in
collusion with the Revenue Officer have carried out the survey of the
said lands and when the complainant tried to intervene, the applicants
inflicted fist and kick blows on the non-applicant no. 2 and his wife. The
non-applicant no. 2 therefore filed the first information report against the
applicants. The applicants have therefore filed the present application to
challenge registration of the first information report.
5] This Court on 23/01/2019 issued notice for final disposal to
the non-applicants and directed the Investigating Agency not to file
charge-sheet against the applicants. The non-applicant no. 1, in
pursuance of the notice issued by this Court, has filed its reply stating
that the Investigating Agency has recorded the statements of witnesses
who have attributed specific role to the present applicants. It is stated that
the original sale-deed is in custody of the applicants which needs to be
recovered. It is stated that the applicants have prepared false and
fabricated document and there is sufficient material available against the
applicants. It is stated that the applicants are having criminal antecedents.
ANSARI
Judgment 4 apl1124.18.odt
6] The non-applicant nos. 2 & 3 have also filed their reply
stating that the applicants have fabricated the official record of the
Government and have tried to illegally grab the lands belonging to the
non-applicant nos. 2 & 3.
7] We have carefully considered the allegations in the first
information report and material produced by the applicants in the form
of sale-deed and copy of the plaint bearing R.C.S. No. 214/2014 filed by
the non-applicant no. 2 against the applicant no. 1 herein in relation to
the suit property seeking relief of declaration that the applicant no. 1 has
no right to disturb the possession of the non-applicant no. 2 over the
land in dispute.
8] On careful scrutiny of the material produced on record by
the applicants, it appears that the applicant no. 1 has purchased various
lands on 17/06/2014 by way of four sale-deeds. Accordingly, the names
of the applicants have been entered into the mutation records. It also
appears that the applicants got the land purchased on 17/06/2014
measured through Dy. Director of Land Records, Gondia on 13/08/2014.
On careful reading of the first information report, it appears that the
ANSARI
Judgment 5 apl1124.18.odt
allegations against the applicants are to the effect that the applicants have
wrongly measured Khasra Nos. 622/2 & 623/1 and have shown the plots
as purchased by them in collusion with the Revenue Officer. In our
opinion, mere survey of the lands in question will not confer any right in
the immovable property in favour of the applicants. The civil suit in
relation to the properties which is the subject matter of dispute between
the applicants and non-applicant nos. 2 & 3 is already pending before the
competent Civil Court. In our opinion, taking into consideration the
allegations in the first information report, it appears that the said dispute
is essentially a civil dispute and no criminality is involved in the said
dispute. Hence, we are of the opinion that continuance of the present
proceedings against the applicants would amount to abuse of process of
the Court.
9] Hence, the following order:-
F.I.R. No. 197/2017 registered with the non-applicant no. 1
- Police Station against the applicants for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 506B read with
ANSARI
Judgment 6 apl1124.18.odt
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set
aside.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending
application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
ANSARI
