Bombay High Court
Shobha W/O Dattuji Wanjari And 2 ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Ajani ... on 30 September, 2021
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, G. A. Sanap
Judgment 1 14.apl.1029.2021 judg.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1029/2021
1. Shobha W/o. Dattuji Wanjari,
Aged about 56 Yrs., Occu.: Private
(Stamp Vendor)
2. Dattu S/o. Gopalrao Wanjari,
Aged about 60 yrs., Occu.: Retired,
Both R/o. House No.2, Ghorpad Road,
Near Madi Mandir, Yerkheda, Kamptee,
Tah. Kamptee, Distt. Nagpur
3. Nikhil Shrikant Golhar,
Aged about 34 yrs.,
Through Power of Attorney,
Manjushri Wd/o. Shrikant Golhar,
Aged about 65 yrs., Occu.: Retired,
R/o. B-704, Vasudha Parnika, Balewadi
Road, Opp. Laxmi Mata Mandir,
Balewadi, Pune - 411 045. .... APPLICANTS
// VERSUS //
State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station officer,
Ajani Police Station, Nagpur .... RESPONDENT
___________________________________________________________________
Shri S. N. Bawangade, Advocate for applicant Nos. 1 and 2
Shri P. R. Agrawal, Advocate for the applicant No.3
Ms S. S. Jachak, A.P.P. for the respondent
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND G. A. SANAP, JJ.
DATED : 30th September 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : G. A. SANAP, J.)
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives
service of notice for respondent. Heard finally by consent of learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2021 05:39:40 :::
Judgment 2 14.apl.1029.2021 judg.odt
2] The applicant Nos. 1 and 2, who has been arrayed as
accused No. 5 and 6, as per Charge Sheet dated 10.06.2021, in Regular
Criminal Case No. 2089 of 2017, have prayed for quashing the First
Information Report and proceedings in Crime No.122 of 2016
registered against them at Ajani Police Station, Nagpur, for the offences
punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3] The crime in quesition was registered on the report of the
applicant No.3- Nikhil Shrikanth Golhar. It is the case of the applicants
that one Mahendra Bhaurao Mhaiskar and Vinod Ramkrushna Tunkule,
who stood as imposter and impersonated one Shri Shrikant Shyamrao
Golhar, the original owner of the property. The property was
transferred behind the back of original owner. The applicant Nos. 1 and
2 are the subsequent purchasers. It is the case of the applicant No.3 in
the report that, the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 knew the real state of
affairs and despite knowing the real state of affairs, they purchased the
said property from accused No.1 Mahendra Mhaiskar.
4] According to the applicant Nos. 1 and 2, the purchase of
the property by them was after verifying the title etc. They are
::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2021 05:39:40 :::
Judgment 3 14.apl.1029.2021 judg.odt
bonafide purchasers. It is their case that they have not committed any
crime.
5] In this application alongwith applicant Nos. 1 and 2, the
applicant No. 3 has also joined to support the applicant Nos. 1 and 2.
They have placed on record the copy of the judgment passed by the
learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur dated 13.08.2021,
whereby the Court has declared the sale deed dated 03.10.2008 and
10.12.2012, executed in favour of the applicant Nos. 1 and 2, as null
and void. The applicant No. 3 was plaintiff No.2 and the applicant Nos.
1 and 2 were defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the said suit. The remaining
defendants namely the original transferror did not participate in the
said suit.
6] The learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that
after this decree, the applicant No. 3 has agreed to sell the property in
question to the applicant Nos. 1 and 2. The learned advocate further
submitted that the children, who were plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit
have relinquished their right in the property in favour of plaintiff No.1.
The plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 have executed power of attorney in favour of
plaintiff No.1-Manjushri d/o. Shrikant Golhar.
::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2021 05:39:40 :::
Judgment 4 14.apl.1029.2021 judg.odt
7] The learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that in
view of above subsequent development and the fact that the applicant
Nos. 1 and 2 were found by them to be bonafide purchasers, the
continuation of this prosecution would not be warranted.
8] We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions
and perused the record and proceedings. It is seen on perusal of
record that in the report the allegations were made against the
applicant Nos. 1 and 2. However, the subsequent transaction between
the parties namely the applicants would show that the applicant Nos. 1
and 2 were roped-in, the said crime being the subsequent purchasers.
In our opinion, continuation of the prosecution against them would not
be warranted. The material placed on record will also not justify the
continuation of prosecution against the applicant Nos. 1 and 2. In the
backdrop of the subsequent development, particularly the legal and
valid agreement executed in favour of the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 the
continuation of prosecution in our opinion, would be abuse of the
process of law. Thus, in our view, in order to meet the end of justice, it
would be just and proper to quash and set aside the first information
report and charge sheet against the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime
::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2021 05:39:40 :::
Judgment 5 14.apl.1029.2021 judg.odt
No. 122 of 2016 as well as the Regular Criminal Case No. 2089 of
2017. Hence, following order:
ORDER
i] The application is allowed.
ii] The First Information Report bearing No. 122 of 2016,
registered with Ajni Police Station, for the offences punishable
under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside
against applicant Nos. 1 and 2 only.
iii] The applicant Nos. 1 and 2 shall stand discharged from
Regular Criminal Case No. 2089 of 2017.
It is made clear that in view of the material on record, the
prosecution against the remaining accused to cotinue without
being influenced, in any manner, by the observations made in
this order.
Accordingly, the Criminal Application stands disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
Namrata
