[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Pahelraj Chandumal Shambhani vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 12 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:34806
{1} ALP 15 OF 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 15 OF 2023
Pahelraj s/o Chandumal Shambhani
Age : 72 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o. Nanak Nagar, Sindhi Colony,
Bhusawal, District Jalgaon. ....Applicant
(Orig. Complainant)
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
2] Shyam s/o Chandumal Shambhani
Age : 68 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o. Nanak Nagar, Sindhi Colony,
Bhusawal, District Jalgaon. ....Respondents
(Respondent no.2/
Original accused)
.....
Advocate for Appellant : Mr.Dattatray K. Kulkarni
APP for Respondent no.1 : Mr.S.A.Gaikwad
Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Adv. Aummaheshwari S. Jadhav
......
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 02 DECEMBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 12 DECEMBER, 2025
ORDER :
1. Instant leave application is at the instance of applicant, who
was original complainant and who had filed a private complaint
alleging commission of offence under Sections 420, 465, 468 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the same stood dismissed.
{2} ALP 15 OF 2023
2. The substance of complaint was that, applicant was owner of
house property bearing Municipal House no.6130 admeasuring 90.77
sq.mt. That, complainant had permitted his brother (present
respondent no.2) to occupy the premises on tenancy basis. That,
after initially paying rent for two months, rent was not paid and
therefore, complainant was constrained to file proceedings bearing
RCS No.138 of 2002 and even succeeded in the same. The said
decision is confirmed by the District Judge in Civil Appeal No.270 of
2014. That, against said decision, his brother Sham preferred
Criminal Revision Application No.38 of 2020 before this Court and is
succeeded in same and it is the case of applicant that against the said
decision applicant has filed review application before this Court and
the same is pending.
3. It is allegation of complainant that, accused, his brother, by
committing forgery of his signature on a fabricated stamp paper,
showed that there was partition of the above house property and he
had got share bearing no.930/1. According to complainant, there
was no partition at all, but on the basis of fabricated document like
consent letter (exhibit 20), property has been tried to be usurped.
Therefore, with above allegations, a private complaint has been
{3} ALP 15 OF 2023
filed praying for action against respondent no.2 for offence under
Sections 420, 465 and 468 of the IPC.
4. In the above private complaint, learned trial Court recorded
pre-charge evidence of complainant alongwith evidence of his
witness Chandrakant Patil, a official of Municipal Council, Bhusawal.
Said Patil has placed on record the documents viz. copy of
application for change of record (exhibit 19); copy of consent letter
(exhibit 20); property tax demand notices (exhibit 21 to 25) for the
year from 2001 to 2003. On appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.1),
Bhusawal, was pleased to acquit the accused by judgment and order
dated 04-11-2019.
It is the above order, which is now sought to be challenged and
for doing so, instant leave application has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for applicant would submit that applicant and
respondent no.2 are brothers. That, applicant is the owner of
Municipal House property bearing no.930 and it was let out on rent
to his own brother, but subsequently there was irregularity in
payment of rent and therefore, recovery proceedings has been
{4} ALP 15 OF 2023
instituted. It is pointed out that in said proceedings, respondent no.2
had put up a case that he is also owner of the property. That,
therefore, under the Right to Information Act, documents were
sought and on studying the same, according to learned counsel, it
was revealed that fraud has been played on him by committing
forgery. That, consent letter was also manufactured and therefore,
offence of 420, 465 and 468 of IPC was clearly made out, but
according to him, learned trial court failed to appreciate the same
and acquitted the accused and hence, learned counsel urges for leave
on the ground that there is improper appreciation and failure to
appreciate oral and documentary evidence and hence leave is urged
for.
6. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has justified the order of
learned trial Court and urges to refuse leave.
7. In the light of above submissions, papers placed before this
court are perused. It seems that parties are brothers. Present
applicant claims to be owner of house property no.930 and it is his
case that he had permitted his brother respondent no.2 to occupy it
on rent, but as there was default in rent, recovery proceedings were
{5} ALP 15 OF 2023
instituted. It is pointed out that in such proceedings, respondent
no.2 appeared and denied very ownership of property of applicant.
It is further submitted that under Right to Information Act, when
papers were obtained from Municipal Council, it was revealed that
on the strength of fabricated consent letter and by committing
forgery of signature, partition is shown to be effected.
8. In support of above case, complainant adduced his evidence
and also adduced evidence of one Chandrakant Patil, who was Clerk
of Municipal Council, Bhusawal and said witness has placed on
record documents exhibits 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25. Exh.20
seems to be consent letter under the signature of applicant
consenting transfer of the house property in the name of Sham
(respondent no.2) and accordingly, on the strength of the same,
Municipal Council has taken it on record and made necessary entries.
Though complainant denied issuing or executing document at exhibit
20, witness no.2 has stated before the Court about complainant
issuing it vide exhibits 19 and 20 under his signature.
9. It seems that there is no distinct evidence from applicant that
there was fraud played on him or by forgery documents were
{6} ALP 15 OF 2023
fabricated and put to use. No prayers were made for referring the
mater to hand-writing expert.
10. Learned trial Court has noted that, primarily issue was
between landlord and tenant and as such dispute was civil in nature.
As ingredients of none of the offences allegedly committed were
made out, learned trial Judge, acquitted the accused.
11. On perusal of the impugned Judgment and order, this court
does not find any infirmity in the same so as to accord leave to
challenge the same. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) Leave is refused.
(ii) Application for Leave to Appeal is rejected.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
