Bombay High Court
Himanshu S/O Ajitkumar Ved vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. ... on 24 August, 2022
Bench: Manish Pitale, Valmiki Sa Menezes
-1- 20.APL.422.2020. & Ors. Judgment.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.422 OF 2020
APPLICANT : Himanshu s/o Ajitkumar Ved, Aged
about 38 years, Occ: Business, Tq. &
Dist. Amravati.
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, through Police
Station Officer, Police Station Gadge
Nagar, Amravati, Tq. & Dist.
Amravati.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Amravati City, Tq. and Distt.
Amravati.
3. Ashadevi wd/o Murlidhar Bajaj, Aged
about 60 years, Occ. : Household,
R/o. House No.32, Ward No.9, Galli
No.1, Krushna Nagar, Amravati, Tq.
& Dist. Amravati.
**************************************************************
Mr. P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. S.M. Ghodeswar, APP for Non-Applicant Nos.1 & 2.
Ms. Radha Mishra, Advocate (appointed) for Non-Applicant No.3.
**************************************************************
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.420 OF 2020
-2- 20.APL.422.2020. & Ors. Judgment.odt
APPLICANT : Himanshu s/o Ajitkumar Ved, Aged
about 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o.
Camp, Amravati, Tq. & Dist.
Amravati.
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, through Police
Station Officer, Police Station, City
Kotawali, Amravati, Tq. & Dist.
Amravati.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Amravati City, Tq. and Distt.
Amravati.
3. Ashadevi wd/o Murlidhar Bajaj, Aged
about 60 years, Occ. : Household,
R/o. House No.32, Ward No.9, Galli
No.1, Krushna Nagar, Amravati, Tq.
& Dist. Amravati.
**************************************************************
Mr. P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. S.M. Ghodeswar, APP for Non-Applicant Nos.1 & 2.
Ms. Radha Mishra, Advocate (appointed) for Non-Applicant No.3.
**************************************************************
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.555 OF 2020
APPLICANTS : 1. Harish Chandumal Bajaj, Aged
about : 56 years, Occupation:
(Orig. Accused in FIR Business, R/o. Krishna Nagar Galli
-3- 20.APL.422.2020. & Ors. Judgment.odt
No.188/2020 & 455/2020) No.1, Gadge Nagar, Amravati.
2. Mahesh Chandumal Bajaj, Aged
about : years, Occupation: Business,
(Orig. Accused in FIR R/o. Siddhivinayak Colony, Line
No.188/2020 & 445/2020)
No.2, Gadge Nagar, Amravati.
3. Khushiram Chandumal Bajaj, Aged
about: years, Occupation: Business,
(Orig. Accused in FIR R/o. Siddhivinayak, Colony Line
No. 445/2020)
No.2, Gadge Nagar, Amravati.
4. Prakash Chandumal Bajaj, Aged
(Orig. Accused in FIR about: years, Occupation: Business,
No. 445/2020)
R/o. Bachraj Gadge Nagar, Amravati.
//VERSUS//
NON-APPLICANTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, through Police
Station Gadge Nagar Police Station
Amravati
2. State of Maharashtra, through Police
Station Kotwali Police Station,
Amravati.
3. Ashadevi Murlidhar Bajaj, Aged
(Orig. Complainant in FIR about: 60 years, Occupation:
No.188/2020 & 445/2020)
Housewife, R/o. Krishna Nagar, Galli
No.1, Ward No. 9, House No.32,
Gadge Nagar, Amravati.
**************************************************************
Mr. G.I. Dipwani, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. S.M. Ghodeswar, APP for Non-Applicant Nos.1 & 2.
Ms. Radha Mishra, Advocate (appointed) for Non-Applicant No.3.
**************************************************************
-4- 20.APL.422.2020. & Ors. Judgment.odt
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ.
DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: Manish Pitale, J.)
Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties. Admit.
02] These three applications under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC), are filed by
applicants, who are arrayed as accused in two First Information
Reports (FIR) dated 08.06.2020 and 28.06.2020, registered at
Police Stations Gadge Nagar and Kotwali respectively in the City
of Amravati, for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467 and 471
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (CPC).
03] The applicant in Criminal Application (APL)
Nos.420/2020 and 422/202 is accused No.5 in FIR
No.445/2020 dated 08.06.2020, registered at Police Station
Gadge Nagar, Amravati and he is accused No.2 in FIR
No.188/2020, dated 28.06.2020, registered at Police Station
Kotwali. He has filed two separate applications seeking quashing
-5- 20.APL.422.2020. & Ors. Judgment.odt
of the two FIRs dated 08.06.2020 and 28.06.2020.
04] The applicants in Criminal Application (APL)
No.555/2020 are accused Nos.1 to 4 in FIR No.445/2020 dated
08.06.2020, registered at Police Station Gadge Nagar, Amravati
and applicant Nos.1 and 2 in this application are accused Nos.1
and 3 in FIR No.188/2020 dated 28.06.2020, registered at Police
Station, Kotwali, Amravati.
05] The two FIRs have been registered at the behest of
non-applicant No.3 in all these applications, alleging that the
applicants in Application No.555/2020, being her brothers-in-
law, had cheated her by illegally executing fabricated document of
sale in favour of the applicant in Application Nos.420/2020 and
422/2020.
06] Mr. P.R. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the
applicant in Application Nos.420/2020 and 422/2020 and Mr.
G.I. Dipwani, learned counsel appearing for the applicants in
Application No.555/2020, submit that the subject FIRs have
been registered by the Police without any application of mind and
that a dispute, which cannot be sustained even in a civil
-6- 20.APL.422.2020. & Ors. Judgment.odt
proceeding, is sought to be illegally given colour of criminality.
07] Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the
applicant in Application Nos.420/2020 and 422/2020, submitted
that the applicant has purchased property from legal
representatives of original owner one Dhalumal Pahlajani, by way
of a registered sale-deed dated 20.09.2013. It is submitted that a
perusal of the copy of the registered sale-deed placed on record,
would show that it is signed by the legal representatives of the said
original owner and also consenting parties. The non-applicant
No.3 has no concern with the said property. It is then brought to
the notice of this Court that non-applicant No.3 along with other
persons had filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.128/2020,
for declaration and possession in respect of one shop in the
aforesaid property, which was subject-matter of the sale-deed. By
inviting attention to the pleadings in the suit, it was submitted
that even according to the non-applicant No.3, the property was
indeed owned by the said Dhalumal Pahlajani and the grievance
of non-applicant No.3 appeared to be that her own husband,
without any authority or necessity had surrendered possession of
-7- 20.APL.422.2020. & Ors. Judgment.odt
the aforesaid leased shop in favour of the original owner of the
property. In this backdrop, a prayer was made in the said suit for
restoration of possession to non-applicant No.3 and other
plaintiffs in the shop, which was subject-matter of the said suit.
08] By relying upon the contents of the said pleadings, the
learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that there
was not even a semblance of dispute between the applicant and
the non-applicant No.3 and therefore, there was no question of
initiation of any criminal proceedings against the applicant at the
behest of the non-applicant No.3. It was further submitted that
since the non-applicant No.3 had been approaching the Police
Authorities, making wild allegations in the matter, on 12.07.2015,
a notice was issued by the City Kotwali Police Station, Amravati,
to the applicant to remain present. In response, the applicant had
produced copies of all documents and no further action was taken
in the matter.
09] Thereafter, on 01.03.2016, the applicant received a
notice from the Municipal Corporation of Amravati in respect of a
complaint made by the non-applicant No.3. Upon all the relevant
-8- 20.APL.422.2020. & Ors. Judgment.odt
papers being produced, the Corporation responded and informed
the non-applicant No.3 that there was a proceeding pending
before the Civil Court and that appropriate reliefs may be sought
from the Court. It is brought to our notice that thereafter, again on
21.03.2016, another notice was received from the said Police
Station at Kotwali, asking the applicant to co-operate with the
enquiry, as regards grievance raised by the non-applicant No.3. It
is submitted on behalf of the applicant that once again all the
papers were furnished and no further action was taken in the
matter.
10] It is submitted that in the backdrop of the aforesaid
proceedings, when the oral report, leading to registration of the
two FIRs, dated 08.06.2020 and 28.06.2020 are perused, it
becomes evident that there was no even a semblance of case made
out for initiation of criminal proceedings and yet, the Police
Stations at Gadge Nagar and Kotwali in Amravati, registered the
two FIRs. It was submitted that the facts narrated above, clearly
indicated that the FIRs deserve to be quashed, as being vexatious
and malicious. It was further submitted that two FIRs could not
-9- 20.APL.422.2020. & Ors. Judgment.odt
have been registered for the same subject-matter or cause of
action. Reliance was placed on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of Devendra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
reported in 2009(7) SCC 495 and T.T. Anthony Vs. State of
Kerala and others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181.
11] Mr. Dipwani, learned counsel for the applicants in
Application No.555/2020, supported the contentions raised on
behalf of the applicant in the other two applications and further
added that the non-applicant No.3 had made wild and
improbable allegations against the applicants and that there was
no basis for registration of the two FIRs dated 08.06.2020 and
28.06.2020. It was submitted that initiation of criminal
proceedings in the present case, was clearly an abuse of process of
law, in view of the admitted facts on record and the statements
made on behalf of the non-applicant No.3 in the aforementioned
suit, pending before the Competent Court. It was submitted that
there was complete absence of ingredients of offences alleged
against the applicants and that therefore, the application deserved
to be allowed.
-10- 20.APL.422.2020. & Ors. Judgment.odt
12] Mr. Ghodeswar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,
appeared on behalf of the non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 i.e. State
Authorities. He submitted that the FIRs came to be registered on
the basis of grievance projected by the non-applicant No.3, before
the Police. It was submitted that the same set of facts could give
rise to civil as well as criminal proceedings.
13] Ms. Radha Mishra, learned counsel (appointed)
appearing on behalf of the non-applicant No.3, submitted that
the said non-applicant has been duped by her brothers-in-law and
that therefore, she had a grievance, which needed to be redressed.
It was submitted that the FIRs were registered by the Police upon
appreciating the grievance of non-applicant No.3 and the fact that
she had made out a prima facie case against the applicants.
14] We have perused the material on record and we have
heard learned counsel appearing for the rival parties. In the
present case, a perusal of the oral reports, leading to registration of
the two FIRs, may give an impression that the non-applicant No.3
was wronged to the effect that the sale-deed was executed,
allegedly, fraudulently in favour of the applicant in Application
-11- 20.APL.422.2020. & Ors. Judgment.odt
Nos.420/2020 and 422/2020 and in the process, the applicants
in Application No.555/2020, being her brothers-in-law, had
played an active role.
15] But, a perusal of the documents available on record,
particularly, the civil suit filed by the non-applicant No.3 along
with other parties, shows that firstly, the nature of the grievance
sought to be raised by the non-applicant No.3 is purely of civil
nature and secondly, the grievance raised by way of civil
proceeding also has no connection at all with the grievance sought
to be projected before the Police, leading to registration of the
subject FIRs. In the suit itself, the non-applicant No.3 has
conceded to the fact that the property was owned by the original
owner i.e. Dhalumal Pahlajani and that her husband had only
lease hold rights in a small shop in the said property, which
according to her, had been illegally surrendered by her husband in
favour of the original owner. There is no indication of any rights
of ownership either in the husband of the non-applicant No.3 or
in the non-applicant No.3 herself, pertaining to the small shop,
leave alone the entire property, which was purchased by the
-12- 20.APL.422.2020. & Ors. Judgment.odt
applicant before this Court from the legal representatives of the
said Dhalumal Pahlajani. Therefore, it is difficult to understand as
to what grievance, the non-applicant No.3 could have had against
the purchaser of the property i.e. the applicant in Application
Nos.420/2020 and 422/2020.
16] Similarly, the grievance sought to be raised by the
non-applicant No.3 against the applicants in Application
No.555/2020 i.e. her brothers-in-law, is also difficult to
comprehend. The allegation appears to be that the said applicants
forged the signature of the husband of the non-applicant No.3 in
order to execute sale-deed in favour of the purchaser of the
property i.e. applicant in Application Nos.420/2020 and
422/2020. There is no question of such a grievance being raised
in the face of the document itself i.e. the registered sale-deed,
which was executed by the legal representatives of the original
owner Dhalumal Pahlajani in favour of the purchaser. Even
otherwise, in the aforesaid suit, at the highest, the non-applicant
No.3 claimed that her husband had only lease hold rights and that
too concerning the small shop in the said property. Therefore, the
-13- 20.APL.422.2020. & Ors. Judgment.odt
claims made by the non-applicant No.3 are totally absurd and
there was no question of initiation of criminal proceedings on the
basis of such claims.
17] It is also significant that before the two FIRs stood
registered on 06.06.2020 and 28.06.2020, the Police Station
Kotwali had twice issued notices to the applicant in Application
Nos.420/2020 and 422/2020, in order to respond to the
grievance sought to be raised by the non-applicant No.3. On both
occasions, the said applicant had responded and placed copies of
relevant documents on record, upon which no further action was
taken. This was as far back as in the years 2015 and 2016. As
noted above, even the Municipal Corporation has issued notice to
the said applicant and upon the relevant papers being placed
before the Officers of the Corporation, the non-applicant No.3
was advised to take appropriate steps before the Competent Civil
Court.
18] In this backdrop, we are unable to appreciate how the
Police Stations at Gadge Nagar and Kotwali in the City of
Amravati could register the subject FIRs on the basis of the
-14- 20.APL.422.2020. & Ors. Judgment.odt
cryptic oral report submitted by non-applicant No.3. The
grievance sought to be raised by the non-applicant No.3 was not
only absurd, but it was in the teeth of documents already available
with the Police Station at Kotwali, Amravati.
19] It is also evident from the material available on record
that none of the ingredients of the offences registered against the
applicants were even prima facie made out against them. Yet, the
FIRs stood registered. The learned counsel appearing for the
applicants were justified in relying upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
discussed the ingredients of the offence alleged against the
accused and laid down the test that can be applied even at the
stage of exercise of inherent power by the High Court under
Section 482 of the Cr.PC, while considering quashing of an FIR
of this nature. We are of the opinion that the case of the applicants
is covered in their favour under the aforesaid judgment. Reliance
placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
T.T. Anthony Vs. State of Kerala and others (supra), is also
-15- 20.APL.422.2020. & Ors. Judgment.odt
justified, because it is clearly laid down therein that more than one
FIR cannot be registered for the same grievance or cause of action.
In the present case, the grievance sought to be projected by the
non-applicant No.3, leading to registration of FIR on
08.06.2020, in Police Station Gadge Nagar, was identical to the
grievance raised in the subsequent FIR dated 28.06.2020,
registered at Police Station Kotwali. Therefore, the present case is
covered in favour of the applicants under the said judgment also.
20] It is significant that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC Ltd. and others
reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736, has taken note of the tendency of
triggering criminal proceedings in disputes that are purely of civil
nature, only with a view to entangle the alleged accused in the
criminal proceedings, so as to bring about some kind of settlement
between the parties. The said practice has been deprecated in the
following words in the said judgment.
"13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice
of a growing tendency in business circles to convert
purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is
obviously on account of a prevalent impression that
civil law remedies are time consuming and do not
-16- 20.APL.422.2020. & Ors. Judgment.odt
adequately protect the interest of lenders/creditors.
Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also,
leading to irretrievable breakdown of
marriages/families. There is also an impression that if
a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal
prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent
settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and
claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by
applying pressure through criminal prosecution
should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar
Suri v. State of U.P. this Court observed : (SCC p.
643, para 8)
"It is to be seen if a matter, which is
essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak
of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a
short cut of other remedies available in law. Before
issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a
great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious
matter. This Court has laid certain principles on
the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.
Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised
to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
21] We are of the opinion that in the present case, the
non-applicant No.3 has sought to give the cloak of criminality to
a so-called dispute, which could be at best be said to be a dispute
of civil nature. We are of the opinion that the grievance sought to
be raised by the non-applicant No.3, was not only absurd and
unbelievable, but initiation of the criminal proceedings was
rendered vexatious and malicious. We are of the clear opinion that
-17- 20.APL.422.2020. & Ors. Judgment.odt
if the said proceedings are allowed to continue against the
applicants, it would amount to an abuse of the process of law and
that ends of justice will be met by quashing the said proceedings
forthwith.
22] In view of the above, the applications are allowed.
The FIR No.445/2020 dated 08.06.2020, registered at Police
Station Gadge Nagar and FIR No.188/2020 dated 28.06.2020,
registered at Police Station Kotwali, Amravati, are quashed.
(VALMIKI SA MENEZES) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Vijay
Digitally Signed By:VIJAY KUMAR
Personal Assistant
to Hon'ble JUDGE
Signing Date:26.08.2022 17:21
