Bombay High Court
Kunwarlal S/O Debilal Rahangdale And ... vs State Of Maha Thr Pso. Ps. Sihora, Tq ... on 6 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:11521-DB
J-APL 436-2025.odt 1/9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL)NO.436/2025
1. Kunwarlal S/o. Debilal Rahangdale,
Aged about 29 years, Occu: Agriculturist
2. Debilal S/o. Diwanji Rahangdale
Aged about 55 years, Occu: Agriculturist
3. Hiwarlal S/o. Debilal Rahangdale
Aged about 24 years, Occu: Agriculturist
4. Sau. Fulwanta Debilal Rahangdale
Aged about 50 years, Occu: Agriculturist
5. Ganesh S/o Mohan Turkar, aged about
43 years, Occu: Agriculturist
All R/o. Sukli (Nakul), Tahsil: Tumsar,
District Bhandara.
... APPLICANTS
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Police Station Officer, Sihora, Tahsil:
Tumsar, District Bhandara.
2) Sunil S/o. Shobhelal Kohle,
Aged about 24 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
R/o. Sukli (Nakul), Tahsil: Tumsar,
District Bhandara.
...NON-APPLICANTS
J-APL 436-2025.odt 2/9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Soumitra Paliwal, Advocate for applicant
Ms H.N. Prabhu, APP for non-applicant No.1/State
Ms Priyanka Athale, Advocate for non-applicant No.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 10.10.2025
PRONOUNCED ON :
JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned
Counsel for both the parties.
2. This is an application filed by the applicant seeking to quash
the First Information Report No. 0152/2024, dated 14.06.2024,
registered by the non-applicant No.1, Police Station Sihora, District
Bhandara, against the applicants, for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 504, 506 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code and the
subsequently registered Summary Criminal Case No. 817/2024,
pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tumsar.
3. The facts as stated in the First Information Report are as
under :
The non-applicant No.2 filed a complaint before the non-
applicant No.1 on 14.06.2024, that he was taking coaching classes
in the village of Sukli (Nakul), Tahsil Tumsar, District Bhandara, and
for the said reason was looking for a separate room, in view of that
he approached one Arjun Sarode and his wife (said Arjun Sarode is
accused No.6 in the charge-sheet). As their house was adjacent to
non-applicant No.2's house, and was vacant as they were residing at
Nagpur. The non-applicant No.2, accordingly asked Arjun Sarode to
rent the said property to him for running coaching classes.
However, Arjun Sarode and his wife agreed to hand over the
property for running the coaching center without any rent/fee, but
stated that the non-applicant No.2 would maintain the said
property. It is further stated in the First Information Report that the
non-applicant No.2 had financially assisted Arjun Sarode, from time
to time, as demanded by him, and he owed an amount of
Rs.45,000/- approximately. It is further stated that in November,
2022, said Arjun Sarode was intending to sell the house, and
accordingly offered the same to the non-applicant No.2 for an
amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. Accordingly, an agreement was entered
into between the parties on 15.11.2022. On the basis of this
agreement, the non-applicant No.2 alleged that he paid
Rs.2,65,000/- to Arjun Sarode in cash, and it was agreed that the
remaining amount of Rs.85,000/- would be paid at the time of sale-
deed.
4. It is further stated that in the month of February, 2023,
however, said Arjun Sarode showed his unwillingness to sell the
property, and further showed his readiness to return the amount to
non-applicant No.2. However, since the non-applicant No.2 was not
ready to accept the amount, further transactions could not be
materialized. It is further alleged that on 23.11.2023, at around
6:00 p.m., when the non-applicant No.2 went to the said room of
coaching classes, he saw Arjun Sarode and his wife Shobha Sarode,
were inside the room. Said wife of Arjun Sarode verbally abused
him, which prompted the non-applicant No.2 to file a complaint
against her at the Police Station. It is further alleged that on the
next day, said Shobha Sarode threw away the items from the
coaching classes, and the said couple tried to take forcible
possession from non-applicant No.2. It is further stated that despite
being asked to vacate, the applicants claimed that the house belong
to them and they abused the non-applicant No.2. On filing of such
complaint to the non-applicant No.1, the applicants left the
property. On the basis of these allegations, the First Information
Report came to be registered on 14.06.2024 against the applicants
and Arjun Sarode under various sections as mentioned above. It is
this First Information Report and the Summary Criminal Case,
which are challenged in the present proceedings.
5. We have heard Shri Soumitra Paliwal, learned Counsel for the
applicant, Ms H.N. Prabhu, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the non-applicant No.1/State, and Ms Priyanka Athawale, learned
Counsel for the non-applicant No.2.
6. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that a plain
reading of the First Information Report, along with the charge-
sheet, does not show any case being made out against the present
applicants, as no dispute occurred between the applicants and the
non-applicant No.2. He therefore states that, only to somehow
implicate the present applicants, they have been named in the First
Information Report. In other words, it is the submission of the
learned Counsel for the applicants that continuance of proceedings
against them would be an abuse of the process of the Court and
therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
7. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that
the offences complained of were squarely made out from the
averments made in the application. The Learned Counsel for the
non-applicant No.2 also supports the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor.
8. We have given our anxious consideration to the matter at
hand. As can be seen from the First Information Report, the role
attributed to the applicants is only their alleged presence on the
date of incident i.e. on 23.11.2023. It is further stated that they
have violated the order of the Civil Court. It will be relevant to
reproduce the order of the Civil Court i.e. Civil Judge Junior
Division, Tumsar, (which is reproduced by the applicant in
paragraph No. 20 of the application) passed in Regular Civil Suit
Case No. 22/2023.
"1. The application is allowed.
2. The defendants or anybody on their behalf are
temporarily restrained from disturbing the possession of
the plaintiff over the suit property and from alienating
the suit property to anybody else till the decision of the
suit.
3. Cost in cause.
4. Parties to expedite the matter."
9. It is thus the principal grievance that the order stated supra
has been violated. We are unable to convince ourselves that the
violation of the order of the Civil Court would attract the offences
as mentioned under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.
There are no material particulars to attract the offences under
Sections 143, 504, 506, and 188 of the Indian Penal Code.
10. We are of the considered view that the non-applicant No.2
with an oblique motive has lodged the present First Information
Report, and the consequent charge-sheet has been filed by the
Investigating Agency thereafter. No offence, much less as mentioned
under the various sections of the Indian Penal Code, is attracted in
the present case. If the non-applicant No.2 is aggrieved by the non-
compliance/violation of the injunction order passed by the Civil
Court, he has other remedies open in law. But lodging of the First
Information Report, as in the present case would certainly not be a
remedy. It is therefore clear that the lodging of the First Information
Report and consequent proceedings arising therefrom are nothing
but an abuse of the process of the Court.
11. As stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana
and others Vs. Bhajanlal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, we
are guided by the parameters laid down in paragraph No. 102 of
judgment and more particularly Clause 1, 3 and 7 thereof :
"102.................
(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.
(2) ...
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or com- plaint and
the evidence collected in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused.
(4) ....
(5) ...
(6) ...
(7) 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."
12. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion
that the present case would certainly fall within the parameters laid
above by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and which had been followed
in many judgments subsequently. It would be therefore a fit case to
quash the First Information Report and the summary Criminal Case
arising therefrom. Therefore following order is passed:
ORDER
i) The application is allowed.
ii) The First Information Report No. 0152/2024, dated
14.06.2024, registered by the non-applicant No.1, Police Station
Sihora, District Bhandara, against the applicants, for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 504, 506 and 188 of the Indian
Penal Code and the subsequently registered Summary Criminal
Case No. 817/2024, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Tumsar, are hereby quashed and set aside.
iii) Parties to bear their own costs.
13. The application is disposed of. Pending applications, if any,
shall stand disposed of.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Jayashree..
