Bombay High Court
Prakash Baliram Dhage And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 7 January, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:1797-DB
1
1612.2023APPLN.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1612 OF 2023
1. Prakash S/o Baliram Dhage
Age : 49 years, Occ : Labour,
2. Chaya W/o Prakash Dhage
Age : 47 years, Occ : Household,
Both R/o Sadashiv Nagar, Khadgaon Road,
Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.
..APPLICANTS
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Police Station, M.I.D.C.,
Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur
2. Jijabai W/o Tukaram Dhale
Age : 55 years, Occ : Nil,
R/o Marwadigalli, Nilanga,
Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur.
..RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for the applicants : Mr. N.T. Tribhuwan
APP for Respondent- State : Mrs. R.P. Gour
Advocate for respondent No.2 : Mr. A.A. Kokad
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 7th JANUARY, 2025024.
JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) :
. The Applicants in the present matter are husband and wife.
They are arrayed as Accused Nos.5 and 6 in F.I.R. No.31/2023
registered with M.I.D.C. Police Station, Latur, Dist. Latur on 16.01.2023
1612.2023APPLN.odt
for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). Respondent No.2 is
the informant.
2. The controversy in the matter pertains to a piece of land,
being plot no.13 admeasuring 1500 Sq. Ft. located in Gut No.106 of
village Pakharsangavi, Tq. & Dist. Latur. The applicants are residing in
plot no.13 and are accordingly in possession thereof. According to the
applicants, the said plot no.13 was purchased by Somnath Waghmare,
father of Applicant No.2 / Accused No.6 and father-in-law of Applicant
No.1/Accused No.5 from one Dayaram Atmaram Singhan, vide
registered sale deed no.1562/2007 dated 30.03.2007. The applicants
state that they have purchased the said plot from Somnath Waghmare,
vide registered sale deed dated 13.03.2009 bearing No.252/2009. The
applicants obtained building permission dated 22.03.2024 from Gram
Panchayat, Pakharsangavi for construction of house on the said plot.
3. Respondent No.2 has lodged F.I.R., as aforesaid on
16.01.2023. The F.I.R. pertains to two adjoining plots i.e. plot nos.12
and 13. The present applicants are in possession of plot no.13. The
version of Respondent No.2, as is apparent from the contents of F.I.R., is
that vide registered sale deed no.1534/2004 dated 15.03.2004, she has
1612.2023APPLN.odt
purchased plot nos.12 and 13 from one Dayaram Atmaram Singhan.
She states that she and her husband used to visit the plots regularly.
Thereafter, since her husband was suffering from Cancer from the year
2017, they could not visit the plots regularly. Respondent No.2 has
stated that her husband expired on 28.10.2021. Some time after the
demise of her husband, Respondent No.2 visited the plots with her son
and found that there was structure with tin shed on the said plots. She
states that on inquires with the occupant, he disclosed his name as
Prakash Dhage i.e. Applicant No.1. Respondent No.2 and her son made
inquires with the office of Talathi and Sub-Registrar and found that one
Nanasaheb Raosaheb Chavan had purchased the same plot nos.12 and
13, vide sale deed dated 19.12.2017, bearing no.4902/2017. In the said
sale deed, Respondent No.2 is shown as vendor. Respondent No.2 states
that she did not execute the sale deed dated 19.12.2017. According to
her, some person had impersonated herself as vendor and executed the
said sale deed dated 19.12.2017 in favour of Nanasaheb Chavan. This
Nanasaheb Chavan is arrayed as Accused No.1 in the F.I.R. The wife of
Accused No.1 namely Kalpana Chavan and one Nanasaheb Waghmare
have signed the sale deed as attesting witnesses. These two attesting
witnesses are arrayed as Accused Nos.2 and 3. One Sagar Bade is
arrayed as Accused No.4. It is stated in the F.I.R. that he is a person,
who acted as broker in the transaction of sale and purchase of plots.
1612.2023APPLN.odt
Respondent No.2 has stated that Accused No.1 purchaser and Accused
No.4 Agent had provided the sale deeds and other documents for
mutation of name of Accused No.1 Nanasaheb Chavan on the basis of
bogus sale deed dated 19.12.2017. The F.I.R is silent with respect to
sale deed dated 30.03.2007 executed by Dayanand Singhan in favour
of Somnath Waghmare, father-in-law of Applicant No.1. Sale deed is
also silent with respect to subsequent sale deed dated 13.03.2009
under which Applicant No.1 has purchased the said plot no.13 from his
father-in-law Somnath Waghmare. The allegation against the
Applicants is that they are in wrongful possession of the said plots and
when Respondent No.2 and her son inquired with them about their
possession, they stated that plot belonged to Accused No.1 Nanasaheb
Chavan. It is alleged that the present Applicants have acted in collusion
and conspiracy with Accused Nos.1 to 4 in order to wrongfully usurp
the said plot and deprive Respondent No.2 of the same.
4. Shri N.T. Tribhuwan, learned counsel for the Applicants
submits that Applicant No.1 is bonafide purchaser of plot no.13, which
he has purchased from his father-in-law under a registered sale deed
dated 13.03.2009. He states that his father-in-law was also bonafide
purchaser of the said plot, who had purchased the same from Dayanand
Singhan, vide registered sale deed dated 30.03.2007. He points out that
1612.2023APPLN.odt
the F.I.R. is completely silent with respect to the sale deed executed by
Dayanand Singhan in favour of father-in-law of Applicant No.1 from
whom Applicant No.1 has purchased the said plot no.13. He further
points out that Dayanand Singhan is not even arrayed as accused. He
states that even if all the contents of the F.I.R are assumed to be correct,
it is apparent that he is in fact victim of offence of cheating, in as much
as, if all the allegations in the F.I.R. are assumed to be correct, he has
been made to part with money towards purchase of a plot, which was
already sold by the original owner Dayanand Singhan to Respondent
No.2. He states that even if all the allegations in the F.I.R. are taken on
their face value, no offence is made out against Applicant Nos.1 and 2
and as such, F.I.R. deserves to be quashed.
5. As against this, Mrs. R.P. Gour, learned APP appearing for
Respondent No.1 and Shri A.A. Kokad, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.2 strenuously opposed the application. They state that
Respondent No.2 had already purchased plot nos.12 and 13 from
Dayanand Singhan, vide registered sale deed dated 15.03.2004. They
state that a registered document amounts to public notice to all.
According to them, it is inconceivable that the father-in-law of
Applicant No.1 as also Applicant No.1, who has purchased plot no.13
from him were not aware about the prior sale deed dated 15.03.2004.
1612.2023APPLN.odt
They state that there is deep state conspiracy in the matter, in as much
as, property belonging to Respondent No.2 was sold vide sale deed
dated 19.12.2017 by some impostor posing to be Respondent No.2.
6. We have also perused the affidavit-in-reply filed by
Respondent No.2. In the said affidavit also she does not dispute
genuineness of the sale deed dated 30.03.2007. She challenged the sale
deed dated 30.03.2007 on the ground that the same could not have
been executed in view of the prior sale deed dated 15.03.2004 in her
favour. She then states that the father-in-law and vendor of Applicant
No.1 has maliciously purchased plot no.13 from Somnath Waghmare.
7. Having heard the rival submissions and on perusal of the
record, we are of considered opinion that the application deserves to be
allowed. It is apparent that the principal grievance of Respondent No.2
is with respect to sale deed dated 19.12.2017, which is executed in
favour of Accused No.1 - Nanasaheb Chavan. Respondent No.2 claims
that she has not executed the sale deed in favour of Nanasaheb Chavan
although her name appears as vendor. According to her, the sale deed
was got executed through some impostor posing as Respondent No.2.
Perusal of the F.I.R. will indicate that the principal allegation and
grievance in the F.I.R. is with respect to the alleged bogus sale deed
1612.2023APPLN.odt
dated 19.12.2017. The allegations with respect to the said sale deed are
against Accused Nos.1 to 4. As against the present Applicants i.e.
Accused Nos.5 and 6, the allegation in the F.I.R. is that they are in
possession of the property through Accused No.1. It is alleged that on
the first occasion when Respondent No.2 and her son found that
Accused Nos.5 and 6 were in possession of plot no.13, they had
informed that the said plot was owned by Accused No.1. The allegation
in the F.I.R. is that Accused Nos.5 and 6 are holding possession of
property of Accused No.1. On the basis of these allegations, it is alleged
that there is conspiracy between all the Accused persons including
present Applicants to deprive Respondent No.2 of the property
belonging to her and wrongfully usurp the same.
8. There are no allegations in the F.I.R. with respect to sale
deed dated 30.03.2007 under which Somnath Waghmare vendor of
Applicant No.1/Accused No.5 has purchased plot no.13. Likewise, F.I.R.
is also silent with respect to sale deed dated 13.03.2009 under which
Applicant No.1 has purchased the said plot no.13.
9. It appears from the record that the vendor of Respondent
No.2 initially sold both plot nos.12 and 13 to Respondent No.2, vide
sale deed dated 15.03.2004. The vendor of Respondent No.2 thereafter
1612.2023APPLN.odt
again sold plot no.13 to Somnath Waghmare, vide sale deed dated
30.03.2007. This Somnath Waghmare, who has executed two sale
deeds with respect to plot no.13 is not arrayed as accused. There are no
allegations against him in the F.I.R. Although, the charge-sheet is not
filed, we had perused the police papers. The police papers do not
indicate that in the subsequent statements, Respondent No.2 or her son
have levelled any allegations against Somnath Waghmare or Dayanand
Singhan. The sale deed dated 30.03.2007 is placed on record by the
Applicants along with the present application. Genuineness of the said
sale deed is not questioned by Respondent No.2 in her affidavit. The
said sale deed also collected by the prosecution during the course of
investigation as was found from the police papers. Learned APP has
also not canvassed during the course of arguments that sale deed dated
30.03.2007 is a bogus document. Learned APP and learned counsel for
Respondent No.2 have opposed the application on the ground that
having executed the sale deed with respect to plot no.13 in favour of
Respondent No.2 on 15.03.2004, her vendor Dayanand Singhan could
not have sold the same property under a subsequent sale deed dated
30.03.2007 to Somnath Waghmare, vendor and father-in-law of
Applicant No.1. This again goes on to show that the grievance if any
should be against Somnath Waghmare.
1612.2023APPLN.odt
10. In the light of aforesaid, we are of considered opinion that
no case is made out against the present Applicants for the offences
mentioned in the F.I.R. The Applicants cannot be held responsible for
the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC. It also cannot be
said that the Applicants have committed forgery much less for the
purpose of cheating or used the forged document as genuine document.
Prosecution has miserably failed to make out ingredients of Sections
465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC. The F.I.R. does not disclose any
offence against the present Applicants. The dispute between the parties
is purely civil dispute. Respondent No.2 is not justified in invoking
penal provisions against the present Applicants with respect to her civil
rights qua plot no.13, which is in possession of the Applicants.
11. Above observations are made only in order to determine as
to whether the Applicants can be held prima facie responsible for the
sections under which F.I.R. is registered against them. The above
observations are not made in order to determine any claims with
respect to the property in question. The parties may agitate the matter
with respect to right, title, interest over the property in question before
appropriate Forum.
12. However, we are of considered opinion that a civil dispute
1612.2023APPLN.odt
is given a criminal colour, which is completely unjustified and amounts
to abuse of the legal process. In the light of the above observations, we
are of the considered opinion that undisputed material on record does
not disclose any offence against the Applicants. The F.I.R. is therefore
liable to be quashed against the Applicants. Hence the order :-
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) F.I.R. No.31/2023 registered with M.I.D.C. Police Station, Latur,
Dist. Latur on 16.01.2023, for the offences punishable under Sections
420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
is hereby quashed against Applicant No.1 - Prakash S/o Baliram Dhage
and Applicant No.2 - Chaya W/o Prakash Dhage.
[ROHIT W. JOSHI] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
JUDGE JUDGE
sga/
