Bombay High Court
Imran S/O Mohammad Irfan Mujawar vs State Of Mah. Thr. M.I.D.C. Nagpur City ... on 13 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:11982-DB
j-apl 619-2022.odt 1/12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL)NO.619 OF 2022
Imran S/o Mohammad Irfan Mujawar
Aged about : 27 Years, Occ : Business,
R/o flat no. 52 Krishna flora, Ganesh
Colony Wanadongri
... APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
1) State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O., M.I.D.C.
Nagpur (City) Nagpur
2) Sanjay Santoshrao Sakhale
Aged about : 61 Occ: Retired
R/o plot no. 58, Shubhash Nagar
New Shitala Mata Mandir Nagpur
...NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.S. Nagpure, Advocate for applicant
Ms Swati Kolhe, APP for non-applicant No.1/State
Shri Vijaykumar Paliwal, Advocate for non-applicant No.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 04.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 13.11.2025
JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned
Counsel for both the parties.
2. The applicant has approached this Court by filing the present
application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, seeking quashing of the First Information Report dated
24.03.2022, bearing Crime No. 0247/2022, registered at Police
Station, M. I. D. C., Nagpur City, for the offences punishable under
Sections 448 and 461 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as also, the
charge sheet bearing No. 114/2022, dated 14.06.2022, and
Summary Criminal Case No. 53/2024 pending before the Jt. Civil
Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hingna,
Dist. Nagpur.
3. As per the averments contained in the First Information
Report lodged by the non-applicant No. 2, it is stated that he is the
lawful owner and possessor of the entire land situated at Mouza
Wanadongri, Patwari Halka No. 46, bearing Survey No. 220,
admeasuring 1.44 hectares. It is further stated that, in pursuance of
the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 14.05.1993, an
area admeasuring 0.41 hectares out of the said total land was
allotted to his sister, namely Smt. Sunita Anandrao Thakalkar,
resident of Bhopal, and accordingly, the names of both the said
parties are duly reflected in the revenue records, including the 7/12
extract.
4. In the year 2020, the non-applicant No. 2 entered into an
agreement for sale with the present applicant, Shri Mohd. Irfan
Mujawar, along with two others, namely, Shri Mohd. Irfan Mujawar
and Smt. Khalikunisha Irfan Mujawar, in respect of a portion of
land admeasuring 0.40 hectares out of his share of 1.03 hectares,
for a total consideration of ₹2,90,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore
Ninety Lakh only). Pursuant thereto, a registered Sale Deed was
executed between the parties.
5. It is alleged in the said First Information Report that
subsequently, the sister of the non-applicant No. 2, Smt. Sunita
Anandrao Thakalkar raised an objection and accused him of
alienating a portion of land which allegedly formed part of her
share. Consequently, on 28.08.2020, the non-applicant No. 2 issued
a written declaration to the applicant and the other co-purchasers,
wherein he stated that he did not approve or consent to the said
registered sale transaction. Thereafter, the applicant refunded an
amount of ₹1,40,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Lakh only) out
of the total sale consideration of ₹2,90,00,000/-.
6. It is further alleged that, with a view to seek cancellation of
the said registered sale deed, the non-applicant No. 2 instituted a
Civil Suit bearing Case No. 196/2021 before the learned Civil Court,
Nagpur. In the said proceedings, the learned Court was pleased to
direct the parties to maintain "status quo" in respect of the suit
property. Notwithstanding such order, it is alleged that, on
01.10.2021, between 11:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., the applicant
unlawfully trespassed upon the remaining agricultural land of the
non-applicant No. 2, admeasuring approximately 0.25 hectares.
7. It is further alleged that, on the said portion of land situated
towards the southern and western sides adjacent to the public road
and neighbouring Sharma's shed, the applicant carried out
unauthorized activities by digging pits, erecting a tin compound,
constructing a shop-shed, laying cement flooring, and enclosing the
entire land with tin sheets. It is also alleged that the applicant
dismantled and removed the wire fencing and tin shed belonging to
the non-applicant No. 2, and further demolished and discarded
three cement boards bearing his name, thereby preventing him
from accessing or entering his own property.
8. We have heard Mr. Rajesh Nagpure, learned Counsel for the
applicant, and Ms. Swati Khote, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
non-applicant No. 1/State, and Mr. Vijaykumar Paliwal, learned
9. The learned Counsel for the applicant has opposed the
allegations made in the present First Information Report. It is the
case of the learned Counsel that the applicant came in contact with
the non-applicant No. 2 through a real estate broker, namely Baba
Pathan. The non-applicant No. 2 offered the land admeasuring
about 0.4. hectares out of the total 1.44 hectares of land situated in
Mouza, Wanadongri, Tq. Hingna, Dist. Nagpur, representing himself
as the exclusive owner of the property.
10. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the
applicant that the non-applicant No. 2 misrepresented himself as
the sole owner of the entire property and stated that his sister sold
out the share of her share to him.
11. It is further submitted that the applicant is not well-versed in
Marathi and legal language and, in order to understand the legal
aspects of the transaction, the applicant was introduced to an
Advocate, Mr. Afjal Mujahid, by non-applicant No. 2. The said
Advocate informed the applicant that the property had a clear title
and advised him to proceed with the purchase. Relying upon the
representations of the said Advocate, and as the Advocate belonged
to the same religion as the applicant, the applicant purchased the
said property and executed a registered sale deed on 19.06.2020.
12. It is further submitted that after execution of the sale deed,
the applicant commenced construction work on the said land. The
applicant erected a 6000-foot compound wall with a 10-foot height.
However, his work was obstructed when the sister of non-applicant
No. 2, namely Smt. Sunita Dhakulkar lodged a police complaint
against the applicant, his parents, and non-applicant No. 2. She also
obtained an order of injunction in Civil Suit R.C.S. No. 948/2020,
stating that she is the rightful owner of the disputed property and
that non-applicant No. 2 had no right, title, or authority to sell the
same. She further stated that non-applicant No. 2 had already sold
the disputed property to her through a registered sale deed dated
14.05.1993.
13. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the
applicant that Smt. Sunita Dhakulkar, residing outside Maharashtra,
was unable to look after the property personally. Taking undue
advantage of this, non-applicant No. 2 first attempted to alienate
the entire land to one Bhimrao Lanjewar, which led her to file
Special Civil Suit No. 751/1998 against non-applicant No. 2,
seeking a declaration of ownership and a permanent injunction. The
said suit was decreed in her favour, and a permanent injunction was
granted.
14. It is further submitted that upon learning that the disputed
land belonged to the sister of non-applicant No. 2, the applicant
demanded that non-applicant No. 2 either execute a correction deed
by selling the adjacent land owned by him, or cancel the sale deed
and refund the entire amount, along with expenses incurred for
construction and registration. However, non-applicant No. 2 denied
both demands, thereby compelling the applicant to lodge a
complaint with non-applicant No. 1/Police Station on 22.09.2022.
15. It is further submitted that non-applicant No. 2, being
apprehensive of the complaint lodged against him, made part
payment in cash but withheld a sum of ₹1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One
Crore Fifty Lakh Only), stating that he would deposit the said
amount before the Court after cancellation of the sale deed.
16. It is further submitted that consent terms were executed
through mediation, under which non-applicant No. 2 undertook to
pay ₹80,00,000/- on 09.09.2021 and the remaining ₹70,00,000/-
on or before 17.09.2021. However, despite the applicant and his
father being present before the mediator on 09.09.2021, non-
applicant No. 2 failed to appear, resulting in the failure of
mediation.
17. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the
applicant that no case under Sections 448 and 461 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, is made out against the applicant as the
applicant was put in lawful possession of the open land by the non-
applicant no.2, which was duly purchased for a valid consideration,
and that the applicant commenced construction work thereon solely
with a view to protect and safeguard his lawful possession. It is
further submitted that the non-applicant No. 2 has himself
dishonestly sold the said immovable property by falsely representing
himself as the absolute owner.
18. In the backdrop of these submissions, we have perused the
First Information Report, which is being challenged in the present
application. The crux of the allegations in the First Information
Report lodged by the non-applicant No.2 is that the applicant, even
though being aware that the suit is pending for cancellation of the
sale deed, has done certain overt acts like fencing the premises, etc.
However, it is noteworthy to mention that as of date, the sale deed
of the applicant even under challenge, has not been set aside by a
competent Court of law. It is therefore clear that the offence of
house trespass as contemplated under Section 442 and punishable
under Section 448 is not made out. This is for the reason that the
definition of house trespass contemplates entering into the property
in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to
intimidate, insult, or annoy any person in possession of such
property. Thus, admittedly, and even as per the contents of the First
Information Report, the applicant herein is the owner of the
property having purchased the said by a valid sale deed which is
still holding the field. Therefore, there is no question of committing
an offence punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code.
19. As far as offence punishable under Section 461 is concerned,
it provides for dishonestly or with intent to commit mischief,
breaking open or unfastening any closed receptacle which contains
or which he believes to contain property. This cannot be also
attracted in the present case, as already stated above, the applicant
is considered to be the owner of the property.
20. From a bare reading of the First Information Report, it seems
that the offence of a civil nature has been given the colour of
criminality, which practice has been time and again deprecated by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments. In the judgment
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 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."
21. We therefore are of the considered view that no offence as
complained of in the First Information Report is made out.
Furthermore, as per the violation of the order of status quo is
concerned, needless to mention that the non-applicant No.2 has an
independent civil remedy. But lodging of the present First
Information Report is certainly not one amongst them. We therefore
proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
i) The application is allowed.
ii) The First Information Report bearing Crime No.
0247/2022, culminating into charge-sheet No.
114/2022, and Summary Criminal Case No. 53/2024
filed under sections 448 and 461 of the Indian Penal
Code pending before the Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division,
Hingna, District Nagpur, are quashed and set aside.
22. The application is disposed of.
23. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Jayashree..
