Bombay High Court

Darshanlal S/O Bikhomal Kingrani And 4 ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Jaripatka ... on 12 November, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:11921-DB

                                                                       1                                 J APL-1252-2022.odt


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                    CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1252 OF 2022
               APPLICANTS                                 : 1 Darshanlal S/o. Bikhomal Kingrani,
               (Accused persons)                                   Age :51 years, Occupation : Business,
                                                              2 Smt. Seema W/o. Darshanlal Kingrani,
                                                                Age : 46 years, Occupation : Household.
                                                              3 Ku. Devika D/o. Darshanlal Kingrani,
                                                                Age : 24 years, Occupation : Service.
                                                              4 Ku. Nupur D/o. Darshanlal Kingrani,
                                                                Age : 21 years, Occupation : Student.
                                                              5 Ku. Piya D/o. Darshanlal Kingrani,
                                                                Age : 18 years, Occupation : Student.

                                                                   All the applicant Nos.1 to 5 R/o. 526,
                                                                   Vasanshah Chowk, Near Rajkumar
                                                                   School, Jaripatka, Nagpur.
                                                                   ..VERSUS..
               NON-APPLICANTS                             : 1 State of Maharashtra,
                                                                   Through Police Station Officer, P.S.
                                                                   Jaripatka, Nagpur.
                                                              2. Manish S/o. Kanhaiyalal Lakhwani,
                                                                 Age- 34 years, Occupation -Business
                                                              3 Parmanand S/o. Budhaldas Lakhwani,
                                                                Age- ...... years, Occupation - Business
                                                              4 Kanhaiyalal S/o. Budhaldas Lakhwani,
                                                                Age-...... years, Occupation-Business
                                                              5 Gaurav S/o. Kanhaiyalal Lakhwani,
                                                                   All R/o; Plot No.72, Bank Colony,
                                                                   Jaripatka, Nagpur.
                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Mr O. S. Harwani, Advocate for Applicants.
                Ms H. N. Prabhu, Addl. P. P. for Non-Applicant/State.
                Mr A. A. Krishnan, Advocate for Non-Applicant Nos.2 to 5.
                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  2                 J APL-1252-2022.odt


CORAM                      : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
                             NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON                : 6 th OCTOBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON              : 12th NOVEMBER, 2025.

JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)

. Heard.

2. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned

Counsel for the parties.

3. The applicants herein have approached this Court

by filing the present application under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash the First

Information Report dated 10.03.2022 registered as Crime

No.0140 of 2022 at Police Station Jaripatka, District Nagpur for

the offences punishable under Sections 34, 385 and 448 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as, "I.P.C.") as

also the additional offences punishable under Sections 384, 341,

427, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., alongwith

charge-sheet bearing No.4 of 2023 dated 07.01.2023.

3 J APL-1252-2022.odt

4. As per the contents of the First Information Report

lodged by the non-applicant No.2, the uncle of the non-

applicant No.2 i.e. the non-applicant No.3 had rented one

block/portion of the property to applicant No.1 - Darshanlal

Kingrani and his family at a rent of Rs.2,300/- per month, while

the other blocks/flats remained vacant and in possession of the

non-applicants. It is alleged that during May - 2021, the

applicants illegally took possession of the said vacant block and

started using it. Further, on 23.05.2021, the non-applicant No.2

visited the property and asked the applicants to vacate the

premises. Upon refusal of the applicants an altercation ensued

and the non-applicant No.2 lodged a complaint at Jaripatka

Police Station on 24.05.2021. Thereafter, on 29.05.2021, a

meeting was convened between the parties to amicably resolve

the dispute wherein, applicant No.1 demanded money from

non-applicant No.2 to withdraw the police complaint. He also

further threatened the non-applicant No.2 of filing false police

complaint. It is further alleged in the First Information Report

that on 10.03.2022, the applicant alongwith his family members

consisting of his sister and two daughters barged into the 4 J APL-1252-2022.odt

premises and took forcible possession of the western block. On

the basis of these allegations, the First Information Report in

question came to be lodged by the non-applicant No.1/State and

the charge-sheet as stated above is filed. It is this First

Information Report and the consequent charge-sheet which are

challenged in the present application.

5. We have heard Mr. O. S. Harwani, learned counsel

for the applicants, learned Mrs. H. N. Prabhu, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant/State and

Mr. A. A. Krishnan, learned counsel for the non-applicant Nos.2

to 5.

6. Mr. Harwani, learned counsel for the applicants

took us through the record of the matter and stated that perusal

of the First Information Report in question would reveal that no

offences much less as alleged in the First Information Report are

made out. He submits that the dispute is essentially a civil

dispute between a landlord and tenant and civil litigations are

pending before the competent forum of law. It is his submission

that only because the non-applicant Nos.2 to 5 could not get 5 J APL-1252-2022.odt

the premises vacated, they have resorted to filing of criminal

complaint against the applicants. In other words, it is the

submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that the

civil dispute has been given a colour of criminality and therefore,

he pressed for quashing of the First Information Report and

consequent charge-sheet.

7. Mrs. H. N. Prabhu, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor, however, vehemently opposes the contentions made by

the learned counsel for the applicants and states that from reading

of the First Information Report at least prima facie offences

complained of can be made out.

8. Mr. Krishnan, learned counsel for the non-

applicant Nos.2 to 5 while adding to the contentions made by

the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the applicants

being tenants have claimed possession over the property which

was never tenanted and thus, the offence of criminal trespass is

clearly made out.

6 J APL-1252-2022.odt

9. Initially, the First Information Report was

registered only under Sections 34, 385 and 448 of the I.P.C.

Section 34 speaks about common intention while Section 385

speaks about putting a person into injury to commit extortion. It

is not even the case of the first informant that he was put in

some fear to allegedly extorted money of Rs.40 lakhs. In our

view, therefore, an offence under Section 385 of the I.P.C.

cannot be made out. Furthermore, the offence under Section

448 of the I.P.C. speaks about the house trespass. It is the case of

the applicants that they are and were in possession of the

premises as tenants; therefore, there cannot be any question of

them committing house trespass, thereby leading to the

commission of an offence under Section 448 of the I.P.C.

10. It can further be seen that while filing charge-sheet

i.e. final report form under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., certain

offences were added. Section 341 speaks about wrongful

restraint. It is not even the case of the first informant that he was

wrongfully restrained and therefore, the offence punishable

under this section is also not made out. As far as Section 385 is 7 J APL-1252-2022.odt

concerned, it speaks about hitting a person in fear of injury to

commit extortion. As can be seen from the first information

report and the consequent charge-sheet, there is no material

indicating commission of offence punishable under this section.

Furthermore, offence punishable under Section 448, which

speaks about house trespass as already stated above cannot also

be made out.

11. In that view of the matter, in our view, this is

essentially a dispute between the landlord and tenant and

therefore, the First Information Report in question and

consequent charge-sheet cannot withstand the scrutiny of

law.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent judgment in

the case of A. M. Mohan vs. The State Represented by SHO and

Another, [SLP (Criminal) No.9598 of 2022] has observed in

para 10 of its judgment, which reads as under :

"The Court has also noted the concern with regard to growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. The Court observed that this is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately 8 J APL-1252-2022.odt

protect the interests of lenders/creditors. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of criminal settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged."

13. In G. Sagar Suri and Another vs. State of U. P.,

(2000) 2 SCC 636, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that it is

to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has

been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are

not short cut of other remedies available in law. It can thus be

seen that dispute in the present matter is essentially a dispute

between the landlord and tenant where, the landlord is seeking

eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises. In view of the

material placed before us on record and considering the dictum

of the Apex Court stated supra, we are of the considered view

that the suit is essentially civil in nature. It would be therefore an

abuse of the process of Court to continue the proceedings