Bombay High Court
Ankit S/O Subashchand Rander And ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Mouda Dist. ... on 25 January, 2024
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: Vinay Joshi
2024:BHC-NAG:1156-DB
Judgment 26 apl 1543.23
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1543/2023
1. Shri Ankit s/o Subashchand Rander,
aged 32 yrs., Occ. Business,
2. Shri Ashutosh s/o Subaschand Rander,
Aged 36 yrs., Occ. Business,
Both R/o. Plot No. 407 and 408 near
Geeta Mandir, Hiwari Layout,
Nagpur.
... APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
through P.S.O. of Police Station
Mounda, Dist. Nagpur.
2. Shri Vikas s/o Dayaram Sahare,
Aged about 44 yrs., Occ. Business,
R/o. Gumthala, Kamptee, Nagpur.
... NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------
Mr. S. Sitani,, Syed O. Ahmed, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. M.J. Khan, APP for non-applicant No.1.
----------------------------------
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 25.01.2024.
Judgment 26 apl 1543.23
2
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :
Heard.
2. Admit.
3. This is an application seeking to quash First Information
Report ('FIR') vide Crime No. 828/2022 registered with Police
Station Mouda, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections
120-B, 201, 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
4. At the instance of report lodged by non-applicant
No.2/informant crime has been registered. Precisely, it is his
grievance that his two brothers namely Naresh Sahare and Suresh
Sahare by deciving their mother Kasubai Sahare got executed sale-
deeds in the year 2004 by keeping her in dark. Informant stated that
neither he has singed as a witness on sale-deeds nor his mother has
executed the same. In short, it is informant's contention that his two
brothers have forged and fabricated sale-deeds in the year 2004. The
informant further alleged that on the basis of those forged sale-
deeds, his brothers have alienated the property in the year 2020 by
executing sale-deeds in favour of present applicants. Thus, it is his
Judgment 26 apl 1543.23
contention that the applicants have also cheated him as they
purchased the land on the strength of sale-deeds which were forged
one.
5. It reveals that mother Kasubai Sahare has executed two
sale-deeds dated 27.12.2004 in favour of her two sons namely
Naresh Sahare and Suresh Sahare. Informant Vikas Sahare is shown
as witness to both the sale-deeds. Admittedly, after executing of
sale-deeds, both Naresh Sahare and Suresh Sahare got mutated their
names to the Revenue Record of the subject land. Not only that, they
have obtained loan from nationalized bank of which documents have
been produced. After gap of 15 years, both brothers have re-sold the
same land in favour of the present applicants by separate registered
sale-deeds.
6. In above scenario, by any stretch of imagination, we are
unable to make out any role of existing applicant who are subsequent
purchasers in alleged act of creation of forged documents in the year
2004. Obviously, both applicants came into picture after 15 years.
Thus, it is heard to digest that they have also participate in the
fraudulent act.
Judgment 26 apl 1543.23
7. It is evident that the real dispute was between informant
Vikas Sahare with his two brothers namely Naresh Sahare and
Suresh Sahare. It is his case that his two brothers fraudulently got
executed sale-deeds from their mother in the year 2004. Apparently,
names of two brothers have been mutated as well as for next 15
years no grievance was put forwarded about said alienation.
Morever, it is a domain of the Civil Court to decide the legality and
validity of the sale-deeds.
8. From the view point of the present applicants (stranger
purchasers), who have appeared first time on the screen in the year
2020 have purchased the said property from Naresh Sahare and
Suresh Sahare. Assuming for a moment, even if the title of Naresh
Share and Suresh Sahare was defective, still no criminality would be
attracted towards the present applicants. At the most, if the sale-
deeds of the year 2004 were held to be fabricated then the applicants
would lose the title. Notably, in pursuance of direction issued by the
Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
FIR was registered. The Police initially investigated and filed A-
Judgment 26 apl 1543.23
summary. However, informant protested which resulted into the
Magistrate directing re-investigation. It is informed that the process
of re-investigation is still go on.
9. Be that as it may, the facts are very clear that the
allegations made in the FIR even if accepted in its entirety, it does
not constitute prima facie case against the present applicants and
therefore, continuation of prosecution is purely abuse of the process
of the Court.
10. In view of above, application is allowed. We hereby
quash and set aside FIR Crime No. 828/2022 registered with Police
Station Mouda, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections
120-B, 201, 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code against the present applicants.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Gohane
Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 30/01/2024 18:42:02
