Rupesh Eknath Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3475 Bom

                                                           65-CriAppln-936-2022
                                      -1-

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 65 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 936 OF 2022

          Rupesh Eknath Shinde
          Age: 37 Years, Occu: Service,
          R/o: Walwane, Tq. Parner,
          Dist: Ahmednagar.                               ... Applicant
                                                          (Ori. Accused)
                  Versus

 1.       The State of Maharashtra
          Through Police Inspector,
          Police Station Parner, Tq. Parner,
          District: Ahmednagar.

 2.       Chandrakant s/o Vitthal Kamathe
          Age: 66 Years, Occu: Business,
          R/o: Shramsafalya Niwas,
          Near Ganesh Mandir,
          Bholenath Chawk, Kondhwa Br.,
          Tq. Haweli, Dist. Pune.                   ... Respondents
                                         (R.No.2 Orig. Complainant)

                                    .....
            Advocate for Applicant : Ms. Manjushri V. Narwade
           APP for Respondent No.1-State : Mrs. M. A. Deshpande
           Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Ms. N. V. Mirajkar h/f
                       Mr. M. V. Thorat (appointed)
                                    .....

                               CORAM :      MANGESH S. PATIL AND
                                            ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.

                               DATED :      10 APRIL 2023

 PER COURT :-


 1.       Heard both sides finally.





                                                        65-CriAppln-936-2022

2. The applicant, who is one of the eight accused, precisely

accused no.8 in crime no.1007/2020 registered with Parner Police

Station, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under

Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal

Code (IPC) and the subsequent charge sheet and the criminal case

pending in the court of the Magistrate, is seeking quashment by

invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

3. The sum and substance of the allegations as can be discerned

from the FIR and the papers of investigation, which now form part of

the charge sheet, are to the effect that respondent no.2, who claims to

be the owner of the property, realized that without he having ever

entered into any transaction in respect of his land, its revenue record

was mutated. It was revealed that by indulging in forgery and by

resorting to impersonation, the accused persons managed to sell his

property to the purchasers by name Pipada.

4. Since none of other accused are before us, we had called upon

the learned APP to take us through the charge sheet and to point out

as to what exactly is the role attributable to the present applicant.

Based on the police papers, she informs us that though name of the

65-CriAppln-936-2022

applicant is not appearing either in the FIR or the statements of any

other witnesses, in the supplementary statement of Pipada, it was

revealed that even the present applicant had helped the other accused

in commission of the crime. The police report received by her

mentions that even he had indulged in preparing the bogus

documents and had received an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- for that

purpose. She would also point out that several telephonic

conversations had taken place between accused no.3 and the present

applicant during the relevant time.

5. As is cursorily mentioned hereinabove, it is a matter of

impersonation and execution of a sale deed by an impostor. The rest

of the accused are alleged to have indulged in such forgery and

cheating, thereby enabling the land of respondent no.2 to be sold to

the purchasers i.e. Pipadas by a registered sale deed. Taking into

account the modus resorted by the accused persons, it becomes

imperative for us to ascertain as to what role is attributable to the

present applicant.

6. So far as the alleged telephonic conversation between the

applicant on the one hand and one of the accused on the other at the

relevant time, in the absence of anything on the record to

65-CriAppln-936-2022

demonstrate what was the nature of conversation between the two,

that circumstance per se cannot be said to be relevant for discerning

the complicity of the applicant in the crime.

7. Again, though the written report received by learned APP, on

the basis of which she is making statements, mentions about the

applicant having taken part in preparation of false documents and

receiving money, except such bald statement in the report, there is

absolutely no material annexed to the charge sheet to corroborate this

allegation. Not an iota of substance could be gathered by the

Investigating Officer to ascertain as to in what manner the applicant

had taken part in preparation of false documents. There is no material

to show that he was present when the document was being prepared,

registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar or at the time of

receiving money. Conspicuously, it is in the supplementary statement

of the purchaser Pipada, for the first time, he vaguely mentioned that

even the applicant was involved and had helped in commission of the

crime, without giving the particulars and without even vaguely

referring as to how these witnesses could identify the applicant with

some role in the crime.

65-CriAppln-936-2022

8. We know that the powers of this Court in quashing a crime are

circumscribed by law as laid down in catena of judgments of the

Supreme Court including Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. Vs. State of

Uttaranchal and Ors.; (2007) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1 and

Mahendra K.C. Vs. State of Karnataka and Another; (2022) 2

Supreme Court Cases 129.

9. But then, in an appropriate case, like the present one, in spite

of complexity of the crime and its modus, the Investigating Officer has

not been able to collect any material which would demonstrate

involvement of the applicant in commission of the crime in some part

at least. His name does not appear in the FIR. There are no witnesses

vouching for his presence during the course of the deliberations or the

transaction or while receiving money or while presenting the

document for registration. In the absence of iota of material, merely

on the basis of suspicion which is also not based on any tangible

material, in our considered view, it would be abuse of the process of

law if the applicant is made to face the prosecution. Allowing the trial

to go on against him would be an exercise in futility to his extent.

Case is squarely covered by the parameters laid down in the matter of

State of Haryana & ors v. Ch. Bhajan Lal ; 1992 SCC (Cri) 426/AIR

1992 SC 604.

65-CriAppln-936-2022

10. The application is allowed. Crime No.1007 of 2020 registered

with Parner Police Station, Taluka Parner, District Ahmednagar for

the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471

r/w 34 of IPC and the charge sheet and criminal case bearing RCC

No.192 of 2021 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Parner are quashed and set aside to the extent of the present

applicant only.

11. Mr. M. V. Thorat was appointed to represent respondent no.2.

We quantify his fees at Rs.3,000/-.

[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.] [MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]

vre