[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Shivcharan Kanhaiya Dhandore vs State Of Mah Thr. P.So. Khamgaon City ... on 5 December, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:13562-DB
934 apl 356.19.odt..odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 356 OF 2019
1. Shivcharan s/o Kanhaiya Dhandore
Aged about 72 years,
Occupation .: Agriculture
R/o. Balirampeth, Brahmanpeth,
Jalgaon, Khandesh
2. Sandeep s/o Shivcharan Dhandore,
Aged about 28 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Balirampeth, Brahmanpeth,
Jalgaon Khandesh
3. Shashibai s/o Shivcharan Dhandore,
Aged about 62 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Balirampeth, Brahmanpeth,
Jalgaon, Khandesh ...APPLICANTS
// V E R S U S //
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through PSO, Khamgaon City,
Tq. Khamgaon,
District: Buldana
2. Rajendra s/o Gokulchand Sananda,
Aged about 59 years,
Occ: Agriculturist, R/o. Khamgaon,
Tq. Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana NON-APPLICANTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Anil Mardikar, Senior Advocate with Rajasi Mardikar, Advocate
for the applicants.
Mrs Swati Kolhe, APP for non-applicant No. 1/State.
Mr. Athrava Manohar, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
934 apl 356.19.odt..odt
2
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 18.11.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT : 05.12.2025
J U D G M E N T :
(PER : N.S. DESHPANDE, J.)
1. Heard.
2. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned
Counsel for the parties.
3. The applicants have approached this Hon'ble Court by
filing the present application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the First
Information Report dated 11.10.2018, registered as Crime No.
575/2018 at Police Station Khamgaon City, District Buldhana, for
offences punishable under Sections 420, 463, 467 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The applicants have
further prayed for stay to the investigation and filing of charge-
sheet.
4. In accordance with the contents of the First
Information Report and the averments made by Non-Applicant No.
934 apl 356.19.odt..odt
2, it is his case that his father, namely Gokulchand Govindlal
Sananda, is the lawful and exclusive owner of property bearing
Nazul Sheet No. 24-C, Plot No. 2, admeasuring 561.2 sq. meters,
together with a three-storeyed superstructure thereon, having
purchased the same under a duly registered sale deed dated
22.10.1966. It is further alleged by Non-Applicant No. 2 that
Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 had earlier instituted Regular Civil Suit
No. 89/2007 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khamgaon,
against his father, which is presently sub judice. According to Non-
Applicant No. 2, having realized that no relief could be secured in
the said civil proceedings, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 purportedly
entered into a conspiracy with Accused No. 6 - the Sub-Registrar -
and in collusion with Accused Nos. 3 namely Shashibai Shivcharan
Dhandhore (Applicant No. 03), Accused Nos. 4 Sandeep
Shivcharan Dhandhore (Applicant No.2) and Accused Nos. 7
namely Shivcharan Kanhaiyyalal Dhandhore (Applicant No. 1),
sought to unlawfully dispossess his father from the said premises.
It is alleged that although none of these accused persons had any
semblance of ownership over the property, Applicant No. 1, acting
on behalf of Applicant Nos. 2 and 3, executed purported sale deeds
934 apl 356.19.odt..odt
dated 18.09.2018, which were then registered by Accused No. 6 as
Document Nos. 3003/2018 and 3004/2018. Further, Non-
Applicant No. 2 asserts that prior to such registration, his father
had lodged a written objection with Accused No. 6, enclosing all
supporting documents to demonstrate that Accused Nos. 1, 2 and
5 had no title whatsoever. Notwithstanding such prior notice and
despite full knowledge of the true facts, Accused No. 6 allegedly
proceeded to register the said sale deeds intentionally, deliberately
and in conspiracy with the other accused persons, purportedly for
monetary gain. Aggrieved by this non-applicant no. 2 lodged the
present First Information Report.
5. We have heard Shri Anil Mardikar, Senior Advocate
for applicants, Mrs. Shruti Kolhe, APP for non-applicant No.
1/State And Mr. Atharva Manohar, Advocate for non-applicant
No.2.
6. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Anil Mardikar
appearing for the applicants submits that even if the allegations in
the First Information Report are taken in their entirety, no offence
934 apl 356.19.odt..odt
whatsoever is made out against the present applicants, who are
bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration of ₹23,75,000/- by
registered sale deeds dated 18.09.2018 (Document Nos.
3003/2018 and 3004/2018). He submits that the applicants have
purchased the suit property Nazul Sheet No. 24-C, Plot No. 2, area
561.2 sq. mtrs. with three-storeyed superstructure from accused
Nos. 1, 2 and 5 namely Seema, Rutuja and Dhananjay Deshmukh,
who are the absolute owners thereof as a legal heirs of Ramrao
Deshmukh (original owner) whose name is duly reflected in the
revenue records and property card since 1960.
7. Learned Senior Advocate further points out that two
civil suits are already pending before the Civil Judge Senior
Division, Khamgaon in Regular Civil Suit No. 89/2007 filed by
accused Nos. 1, 2 and others against non-applicant No. 2's father
for eviction and possession, and Regular Civil Suit No. 133/2018
filed by non-applicant No. 2's father against the vendors and
others for declaration, permanent injunction and specific
performance of an alleged lease agreement wherein temporary
injunction was granted on 25.02.2019 in favour of non-applicant
934 apl 356.19.odt..odt
No. 2's father. Thus, the entire dispute is purely civil in nature and
has been cleverly converted into a criminal case only to harass the
applicants who are lawful and bona fide purchasers.
8. Per contra, Mrs. Shruti Kolhe, Learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for non-applicant No. 1/State, vehemently
opposes the application and submits that during the course of
investigation it has been revealed that the suit plot was initially
granted on permanent lease on 09.10.1919 by the then
Raobahadur Keshaorao Janrao Deshmukh in favour of one Devidas
Martand Fadke for the purpose of construction of a house. The
learned Civil Judge, Khamgaon has observed that the intention
behind the said lease was to create a permanent leasehold right.
Thereafter, the lease rights passed through a chain of transactions
-- from Devidas Fadke to Vinayak Thosar, from Vinayak Thosar
(by way of mortgage and subsequent sale) to Narhari Kale, from
Narhari Kale by registered gift deed dated 11.09.1959 to
Janardhan Narhari Kale and Mukund Narhari Kale, and finally
from Mukund Narhari Kale and Janardhan Narhari Kale to non-
applicant No. 2's father Gokulchand Govindlal Sananda by
934 apl 356.19.odt..odt
registered sale deed dated 22.10.1966.
9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits
that the sale deed executed by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 (Seema,
Rutuja and Dhananjay Deshmukh) in favour of the present
applicants on 18.09.2018 is fraudulent because the vendors had
no title to convey inasmuch as the leasehold rights had already
been validly transferred to non-applicant No. 2's father in 1966.
She, therefore, contends that the applicants cannot be treated as
bona fide purchasers and that the offences of cheating, forgery and
criminal conspiracy are prima facie made out from the averments
in the First Information Report as well as from the material
collected during investigation.
10. Learned counsel for non-applicant No. 2 supports the
submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and
further contends that the present applicants had full knowledge of
the registered sale deed dated 22.10.1966 executed in favour of
non-applicant No. 2's father, which fact is admitted by the
applicants themselves inasmuch as a copy of the said 1966 sale
deed has been annexed by the applicants to the present
934 apl 356.19.odt..odt
application. Further he submits that on 19.02.2018 applicant No. 1
himself caused a public notice to be published in the Marathi daily
"Lokopachar" expressing his intention to purchase the suit
property from accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 and inviting objections. In
response thereto, non-applicant No. 2's father published a reply on
22.02.2018 in the local daily "Khabre Shamtak" (Annexure A-2)
clearly stating that he is the owner of the three-storeyed building,
holds the plot on leasehold rights, that Regular Civil Suit No.
89/2007 and Regular Civil Suit No. 133/2018 are pending, and
that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 have no right, title or interest
whatsoever in the property.
11. Learned Senior Advocate in his rejoinder submits that
the entire edifice of non-applicant No. 2's case collapses on a bare
reading of the very sale deed dated 22.10.1966 on which non-
applicant No. 2 places heavy reliance. The said deed itself
categorically records that the vendors Narhari Kale and his sons
were only leaseholders under a lease granted on 09.10.1919 for a
fixed term expiring on 01.10.2015 and that they had no authority
to transfer ownership of the land. The vendors, being mere
934 apl 356.19.odt..odt
tenants, could not have conveyed a better title than what they
themselves possessed. Thus, non-applicant No. 2's father acquired,
at best, only the leasehold rights that automatically came to an
end on 01.10.2015. After the expiry of the lease period, the
possession of non-applicant No. 2's father became wholly
unauthorized and that of a trespasser.
12. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that the
public notice dated 19.02.2018 published by applicant No. 1 and
the reply dated 22.02.2018 published by non-applicant No. 2's
father, as also the objections sent to the Sub-Registrar on
26.02.2018 and 18.09.2018, lose all significance once it is seen
that non-applicant No. 2's father had no surviving right in the
property after 01.10.2015. Mere issuance of a notice by a person
having no legal right and non-reply thereto cannot convert a
perfectly lawful purchase from the reversioners who stepped in
after the expiry of the lease into a criminal offence.
13. In view of above facts and the record of the matter, it
can be seen that the primary allegation against the present
applicants is that they have purchased the property in question
934 apl 356.19.odt..odt
from such persons who had no valid title to the property which
was sold. We are at pains to understand how such an act would
constitute an offence punishable under Sections 420, 463 and 467
of the I.P.C. Assuming for a moment that the property was sold by
persons who are having no title, admittedly, as can be seen from
the sale deeds in question, the applicants before this Court are the
purchasers of the said property. Therefore, interpreting the
ingredients of the offence liberally, the applicants cannot be said
to be associated with the offence of cheating. It is a settled
principle of law that for attracting the offence of Section 420 of
the IPC what is important is intention to deceive right from the
inception. In the present case, there is no such averment nor can
it be inferred from the meaningful reading of the First Information
Report and supporting the documents that there was intention
nurtured by the applicants from the inception of the transaction
itself. Therefore, in our view, offence under Section 420 of the IPC
is not made out.
14. As far as offence under Section 463 of the I.P.C. is
concerned, it speaks about forgery and contemplates making of
934 apl 356.19.odt..odt
any false document with intent to cause damage or injury to the
public or to any person. It is not even the non-applicant No.2's
case that any document is forged as contemplated in Section 463
of the IPC which is punishable under Sections 465 and 467 of the
I.P.C.
15. Thus, we are of the view that dispute is essentially
pertaining to the title of property and therefore, it is of civil
nature. Now a days there is a growing tendency of converting civil
matters into criminal one and the litigants resort to filing of First
Information Report without there being any offence or mens rea
in that regard. We are supported by our view in the recent
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder
Chand Bagri Vs. Jagadish Prasad Bagri and another in Criminal
Appeal No.5000/2025 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court after
stating the entire law regarding Section 420 of IPC observed that
for establishing offence of cheating the complainant is required to
show that applicant had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the
time of making a promise or representation of not fulfilling the
said agreement. Thus, there is no allegation in the complaint
934 apl 356.19.odt..odt
indicating either expressly or impliedly any intentional deception
or fraudulent/dishonest intention on the part of the applicant right
from the time of initiation of transaction. Further more as
observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the same judgment
referring to its judgment in Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of
Uttaranchal, reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 that it is the duty of the
Court that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument or for
seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise
the accused.
16. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that
case would squarely fall within the parameters in laid down of
the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajanlal and others
reported in 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335 under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 226 of
the Constitution and laid down the guidelines wherein such
powers should be exercised which are as follows:-
"(1) Where the allegations made in the First
Information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
934 apl 356.19.odt..odt
(2) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with
an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
17. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Application is allowed.
(ii) FIR No.575/2018 registered with Police Station
Khamgaon City, District Buldhana for offences punishable under
Sections 420, 463, 467 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code against applicants is hereby quashed and set aside to the
extent of the present applicants.
18. The criminal application stands disposed of in
the above said terms.
19. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
[NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J] [URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.]
934 apl 356.19.odt..odt
manisha
Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 05/12/2025 13:39:23
