Bombay High Court
Ravindra Kadu Pawar And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 9 January, 2025
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2025:BHC-AS:1396-DB
913. wp 2674-24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2674 of 2024
RAVINDRA KADU PAWAR & ANR. ..PETITIONERS
VS.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR...RESPONDENTS
----
Mr. S. P. Shinde a/w. Mr. R. L. Kamble, Advocate for the
Petitioners.
Mr. R. M. Pethe, APP for Respondent No.1- State.
Mr. Sachin Gite, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
----
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 9th JANUARY 2025.
JUDGMENT ( PER - RAJESH S.PATIL, J.) :
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Petition is taken up
for hearing and disposal.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the original accused
No.17 and 18, against whom Crime No. 0089 of 2022 has been
registered at Sarkar Wada Police Station, Nashik City, at the behest
of Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Sections 120-
B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Diksha Rane/ADN 1 of 13
913. wp 2674-24.odt
3. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the
Petitioners that they have been arrayed as Accused Nos.17 and 18
respectively in the First Information Report (FIR) No. 0089 of 2022
registered with Sarkar Wada Police Station, Nashik City, on 10 th
May, 2022 along with other Accused persons. It is further submitted
that in the FIR, the Complainant, who is Respondent No.2 herein,
has alleged that her father late Shri Ashok Bhaguji Bhalerao along
with Shri Sunil Bhaguji Bhalerao, Shri Bhagwan Ramchandra
Sonawane, Shri Karbhari Ramchandra Sonawane, Shri Tulsiram
Ramchandra Sonawane and Accused No.1 (Shri Chandrasekhar
Madhavrao Ayachit) were jointly owners of land admeasuring 1H
62R situated in Survey No.702/1-A consisting of Plot No.1 to 30
well within the limits of the Nashik Municipal Corporation, which
was purchased for consideration of Rs.5,76,000/- from erstwhile
owner Shri Vasant Murlidhar Vise and others under a registered Sale
Deed dated 26th August 1994. Accordingly, the names of the parties
to the Sale Deed were entered into 7/12 extract vide Mutation Entry
No.32658. The purchasers, who were eight in numbers paid a sum
of Rs.72,000/- each. Thereafter, all the eight persons decided to
develop the said property, therefore, they got the layout plan
approved and converted the land into 'NA' and the Colony roads
Diksha Rane/ADN 2 of 13
913. wp 2674-24.odt
were prepared after demarcating the plots as per approved layout.
4. Subsequently, the eight purchasers which included the
Complainant's father published a "Title Verification" notice in
"Dainik Deshdut" on 9th May, 2019 through their Advocate.
Accused No.1, Shri Chandrasekhar Madhavrao Ayachit raised an
objection to the newspaper notice in respect of the "Title
Verification". Due to the objection raised by Accused No.1, the
Complainant's late father along with others became aware about the
fact that the Accused No.1 claimed to have entered into a
Development Agreement in favour of Accused No.1 and also a
General Power of Attorney in his favour. Hence, papers to that effect
were demanded from Accused No.1, who refused to show any such
papers. It is further alleged in the complaint lodged with the FIR
that the documents registered by Accused No.1, a watchman and a
clerk working with Accused No.1 was made to stand and sign the
documents in place of Mr. Tulsiram Ramchandra Sonawane,
Bhagwan Sonawane and Dilip Bhalerao So also, in both the
documents that is the Development Agreement and the Power of
Attorney, the complainant had not put either her signature or thumb
impression. The documents are false and fabricated. Therefore, an
Diksha Rane/ADN 3 of 13
913. wp 2674-24.odt
offence under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 34
of the Indian Penal Code was attracted.
5. It appears that on an complaint under Section 156 (3) of
Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the Complainant, the Court
directed the concerned Police Station to conduct detailed
investigation of crime. Thereafter, the FIR No.0089 of 2022 was
registered. The present Petitioners have been arrayed as Accused
Nos.17 and 18 respectively.
6. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that it does not disclose
any of the offence as punishable under Sections Sections 120-B,
406, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
there was no need to take cognizance of the complaint. In the FIR,
there are no allegations levelled against the Petitioners and their
names are included with the sole intention to harass the Petitioners.
The FIR has been lodged after a long delay of more than three years.
The Petitioners have bought Plot No.22, admeasuring 250 sq.mtrs.
Which falls in Survey No. 702/1-A/2(21)/22 from one Mr. Narendra
Jagannath Bankar through a registered Sale Deed dated 3 rd April,
2007 for a consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Before entering into a
Diksha Rane/ADN 4 of 13
913. wp 2674-24.odt
registered Sale Deed, the Petitioners had verified and checked all
requisite documents from Mr. Narendra Jagannath Bankar. It
appeared from the documents that the said Mr. Narendra Jagannath
Bankar had purchased the plot from Mr. Chandrashekar Madhavrao
Ayachit under the Sale Deed dated 22nd November, 2002 and
accordingly, the name of Mr. Narendra Jagannath Bankar was
mutated in the records in respect of Survey no.702/1-A/2(21)/22
bearing Mutation Entry No.47761. In the FIR, the name of an
erstwhile owner from whom the Petitioners had purchased the plot
i.e. Mr. Narendra Jagannath Bankar does not find reference too. The
fact narrated in the Complaint and FIR does not discharge any
committed of offence by the Petitioners. Therefore, this is a fit case
where the FIR against the Petitioners should be quashed.
7. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the
Petition and submitted that the perusal of the entire FIR and charge-
sheet would show that there is ample evidence against the
Petitioners to convict them under the offence under Sections 120-B,
406, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is
further submitted that once charge-sheet is filed, this Court should
not entertain the present Writ Petition.
Diksha Rane/ADN 5 of 13
913. wp 2674-24.odt
8. The learned Advocate appearing for the
Complainant/Respondent No.2 vehemently opposed this Writ
Petition. The learned Advocate submitted that the Petitioners have
already filed a Civil Suit at Nashik in which, interim orders have
passed against the Petitioners, directing them not to deal with the
subject property. He submitted that mere pendency of civil suit
doesn't make out a ground for quashing of criminal proceedings.
He further submitted that the Petitioners should be directed to face
trial and the present Writ Petition which is devoid of merits and the
same may be dismissed with costs.
9. We have heard learned Advocates appearing for the
parties and the learned APP.
10. It is a matter of record that the FIR does not find the name
of Mr. Narendra Jagannath Bankar from whom the Petitioners had
purchased the subject plot No.22, by a registered Sale Deed dated 3rd
April, 2007. The said Mr. Narendra Jagannath Bankar had
purchased the subject plot from Mr. Chandrasekhar Madhavrao
Ayachit by a Sale Deed dated 22 nd November, 2002. A Mutation
Entry to that effect was recorded. The Petitioners have purchased
Diksha Rane/ADN 6 of 13
913. wp 2674-24.odt
the plot in the year 2007 and the name of an erstwhile owner from
whom the Petitioners purchased the plot that is Mr. Narendra
Jagannath Bankar is not finding place in the FIR. The FIR is lodged
based on the Criminal Application No.1248 of 2021 filed by the
Complainant before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Nashik.
11. In the complaint, on the basis of which the F.I.R has been
lodged, in tabular form there is mention about the Accused number,
area of the plot, the name of the accused who has purchased the
plot. The name of Mahavir Bhavrilal Chopda is mentioned as
Accused No.16 against whom Plot No.21 admeasuring 250.25 sq.
mtrs. Accused No.17 the name of Ravindra Kadu Pawar and
Accused No.18 Ajay Rajaram Pawar (who are the Petitioners in the
present Petition) have been shown, and plot No.22 admeasuring
250.25 sq mtrs have been shown against their name. However,
further paragraph No.F shows that Accused No.16-Mahavir
Bhavarilal Chopra in connivance with Accused No.1-
Chandrashekhar Ayachit based on fraudulent power of attorney, Plot
No.22 (subject plot) has been shows as sold. It further states that
without any consideration being paid to the Complainant's father or
Diksha Rane/ADN 7 of 13
913. wp 2674-24.odt
to any of the 7 persons the land is shown as sold. Therefore, the
Complaint at two different places with regard to Plot No.22 gives
reference of two different persons, at one place name of the
petitioners have been shown, while at the other place the name of
Accused No.16-Mahavir Bhavarilal Chopra has been shown.
12. The FIR has been registered under Section 120-B, 420,
467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
as against the Accused persons, including the Petitioners, who are
arrayed as Accused Nos. 17 and 18.
13. Section 120-B-cheating and dishonestly inducing
someone to deliver property.
In the present proceedings, the Complainant herself as referred to
two different persons as Accused. The FIR states that the subject
Plot No.22 being sold fraudulently by Accused No.1. It is a matter
of record that the present Petitioners, who are arrayed as Accused
Nos. 17 and 18, purchased the subject plot No.22 from one Mr.
Narendra Jagannath Bankar by way of registered sale dated 3rd
April, 2007. The said Bankar is not a arrayed as an Accused in the
present proceedings. He had purchased the subject Plot No.22 from
Diksha Rane/ADN 8 of 13
913. wp 2674-24.odt
Accused No.1 by sale deed dated 22nd November, 2022. Hence, the
ingredients of Section 420 are not attracted.
14. Section 406-punishment for criminal breach of trust.
In the present proceedings, the present Petitioners, who are arrayed
as Accused Nos. 17 and 18 in the F.I.R have not deal with the
property through the Accused No.1. They purchased the property
based on a search report provided by an Advocate and executed a
registered sale deed dated 3rd April, 2007. Therefore, according to
us, the ingredients of Section 406 are not attracted.
15. Section 467-forgery of valuable securities, will, and other
documents.
In the present proceedings, the ingredients of Section 467 are not
attracted. The present Petitioners had purchased the property by
registered sale deed in the year 2007 from Narendra Bankar, based
on a title search report of a lawyer.
16. Section 468-forgery for the purpose of cheating.
In the present proceedings, the ingredients of Section 468 are not
attracted. For the reasons that the Petitioners had purchased the
Diksha Rane/ADN 9 of 13
913. wp 2674-24.odt
subject Plot No.22 by a registered sale deed dated 3 rd April, 2007
and had taken due care and precaution, by obtaining a title search
report, which is annexed as page Nos.76 to 80 of the present
Petition. Hence, the ingredients of Section 468 are not attracted.
17. Section 471- using a forged document or electronic
record.
The Complainant's allegation regarding the forging of documents is
mainly against Accused No.1. According to the Complainant,
Accused No.1 forged documents, and as per paragraph No.F, the
subject Plot No.22 was sold to Mr. Mahavir Chopda (Accused
No.16). However, in the earlier part of the complaint, the said Plot
No.22 has been shown as sold to the present Petitioners, who are
arrayed Accused No.17 and 18. This itself shows that the
Complainant was not sure that the subject Plot No.22 was sold by
Accused No.1 to which of the Accused. However, it is brought on
record by the Petitioners that the Petitioners had not purchased the
subject Plot No.22 from Accused No.1. They had purchased the
subject Plot No.22 from Accused No.16 Mr. Narendra Bankar by a
registered sale deed dated 3rd April, 2007. The said Narendra Bankar
has not been arrayed as an Accused in the present FIR Hence, the
Diksha Rane/ADN 10 of 13
913. wp 2674-24.odt
ingredients of Section 471 are not attracted.
18. Section 120-B- the punishment for criminal conspiracy.
To attract Section 120-B, there must be relevant allegations
regarding the role of the Petitioners, who are arrayed as an Accused
No.17 and 18. The fact that the complaint is based allegations at one
place that Accused No.1 sold the subject Plot No.22 to the
Petitioners, and at another place, to Accused No.16. Hence The
ingredients of Section 120-B are not attracted against the present
Petitioners, who are shown as Accused Nos. 17 and 18. However,
the fact remains that Petitioners have never purchased the subject
plot No.22 from Accused No.1.
19. Section 34- Acts done by several persons in furtherance of
common intention.
Even the ingredients Section 34 are not attracted as against the
Petitioners, as they can at the most be called bonafide purchaser for
value without notice.
20. The fact narrated in the complaint and the FIR, in our
view, doesn't prima facie disclose the commission of an offence by
Diksha Rane/ADN 11 of 13
913. wp 2674-24.odt
the Petitioners. The allegations against the Petitioner are
insignificant, on the basis of which no prudent person could reach to
a conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the
Petitioners/Accused Nos. 17 and 18.
21. We find that there is no merits in the FIR lodged as
against the Petitioners and the charge-sheet filed to that effect as far
as the Petitioners/Accused Nos.17 and 18 are concerned for the
offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471
read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, hence, the
present Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and
(b) of the Writ Petition, which read as under (reproduced
verbatim) :-
(a) This Hon'ble High Court may kindly be
pleased to issue appropriate writ in the nature of writ of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order in the
nature of writ of certiorari thereby quashing and setting
aside the FIR No.89 of 2022 registered u/s. 120-B, 506,
420, 467, 468, 471 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 of I.P.C. with Respondent No.1, Sakinaka Police
Station, Nashik at the instance of the Respondent No.2.
(b) This Hon'ble High Court may kindly be
pleased to issue appropriate writ in the nature of writ of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order in the
nature of writ of certiorari thereby quashing and setting
aside the Order dated 26/04/2022 passed by the
Additional Chief Judicial, Magistrate in Complaint filed
under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
Diksha Rane/ADN 12 of 13
913. wp 2674-24.odt
22. Our findings noted above are only on the basis of the FIR
and we have not dealt with the merits of the Civil Suit. The said
Civil Suit filed by the Complainant to be decided without being
influenced by the findings recorded by us in the present order.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Signed by: Diksha Rane
Diksha Rane/ADN 13 of 13
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 13/01/2025 19:46:08
