Bombay High Court
Mahavir S/O Davalji Nagrale And Another vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Frezarpura ... on 13 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:12037-DB
Judgment
496 apl371.22
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.371 OF 2022
1. Mahavir s/o Davalji Nagrale,
aged about 69 years, occupation - retired.
2. Kamal w/o Mahavir Nagrale,
aged about 65 years, occupation - retired.
Both r/o Vihar Housing
Society, Yashwant Nagar, Telco
Road, Pimpri, Pune - 411018. ..... Applicants.
:: V E R S U S ::
1. State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer,
Police Station Frezarpura,
Amravati, District Amravati.
2. Achal d/o Sanjay Pohekar,
aged about 23 years,
r/o c/o Sanjay Belsare,
Kailas Nagar, Mahadev Khori,
Amravati, taluka and district
Amravati. ..... Non-applicants.
Shri P.R.Agrawal, Counsel for the Applicants.
Mrs.S.V.Kolhe, Addl.P.P. for the NA No.1/State.
Shri D.N.Mudgate, Counsel for NA No.2/Complainant.
.....2/-
Judgment
496 apl371.22
2
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE &
NANDESH S.DESHPANDE, JJ.
CLOSED ON : 10/11/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 13/11/2025
JUDGMENT ( Per : Urmila Joshi-Phalke)
1. The present application under Section 482 of
the CrPC is filed for quashing FIR bearing registration
No.61/2019 registered under Sections 452, 323, 504, and
506 read with 34 of the IPC and consequent proceeding
arising out of the same i.e. RCC No.740/2019.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, the crime is
registered on the basis of a report lodged by non-
applicant No.2 Achal d/o Sanjay Pohekar (the
complainant). As per her report, after death of her
grandmother, applicant No.2 fraudulently mutated her
own name in the property of the grandmother of the
complainant. The applicants were time and again
insisting the complainant to vacate the said premises. On
.....3/-
Judgment
496 apl371.22
16.1.2019, at about 12:00 noon, when the complainant
was at her residence, one Suwarna Athawale along with
co-accused came to her house and insisted her to vacate
the said premises as the said property has been purchased
by her. They slapped the complainant and informed her
that they are getting the premises vacated at the instance
of the applicants. On the basis of the said report, the
police have registered the crime against the applicants.
3. Heard learned counsel Shri P.R.Agrawal for the
applicants; learned Additional Public Prosecutor
Mrs.S.V.Kolhe for the State, and learned counsel Shri
D.N.Mudgate for the non-applicant No.2/complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted
that the allegations made in the FIR are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there are
grounds for proceeding against the applicants. He
.....4/-
Judgment
496 apl371.22
submitted that the allegations in the FIR nowhere show
presence of the applicants. Merely on the basis of
statements of the co-accused, they are implicated in the
alleged offence. He further invited our attention to a fact
that there is a dispute between the applicants and the
complainant in respect of constructed house on plot
No.42 of survey No.87 situated at Mouza Wadali, Pragane
Nandgaon Peth, taluka and district Amravati admeasuring
1200 square feet situated within the limits of Municipal
Corporation, Amravati having its Municipal Corporation
Property No.909. The said property was purchased by the
mother of applicant No.2 by name Alokabai Kisanrao
Pohekar by registered sale deed dated 5.1.1967 from one
Vyankatrao Tukaramji Borkar and during her life time, she
enjoyed the property as an absolute owner thereof.
Father of applicant No.2 Kisanrao Pohekar was in
Government Service and retired in the year 1974. The
.....5/-
Judgment
496 apl371.22
marriage between the applicants was solemnized on
12.6.1977 and since then applicant No.1 is resident of
Pune and staying at Pune since their marriage. The
complainant claims to be daughter of Sanjay Kisanrao
Pohekar and it is her claim that Sanjay Pohekar is son of
Kisanrao Pohekar. The father of the complainant, as per
the applicants, was not a real son of Kisanrao. Thus,
relationship between the applicants and the complainant
is in dispute and the same is subject-matter, which can be
examined in civil proceeding. It is submitted that due to
the property dispute, the applicants are implicated in the
alleged offence.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State strongly opposed the contentions
and submitted that considering investigation carried out
by the investigating officer, the statements of eyewitnesses
disclose involvement of two ladies in the alleged offence.
.....6/-
Judgment
496 apl371.22
As far as the role of the applicants is concerned, due to
the property dispute, they have engaged said two persons
and other two persons entered in the house of the
complainant unauthorizedly and caused harm to the
complainant and, therefore, the offence, prima facie, is
made out. In view of that, the application deserves to be
rejected.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant endorsed
the same contentions and submitted that involvement of
the applicants reveals from the investigation. In view of
that, the application deserves to be rejected.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the respective
parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is not
disputed that there is a dispute as to the relationship
between the applicants and the complainant. The
complainant is residing at plot No.42 of survey No.87,
which, according to the applicants, is owned by their
.....7/-
Judgment
496 apl371.22
forefathers. 7/12 extract and property documents on
record show name of Kisanrao Sakharamji Pohekar, i.e.
the father of the applicants. Thus, the property is claimed
by the applicants as well as the complainant. The Gift
Deed on record shows that Kisanrao Sakharamji Pohekar
executed the Gift Deed in favour of applicant No.2, which
is registered document and the said property in dispute is
gifted to applicant No.2.
8. Thus, everything revolves around the dispute
between the applicants and the complainant. A civil
dispute bearing No.19/2019 filed by the complainant is
also pending CJSD.
9. Admittedly, the presence of the applicants
nowhere reflects either from the recital of the FIR or the
statements of various witnesses recorded during the
investigation. The implication of the applicants is only on
the basis that the complainant has narrated that two
.....8/-
Judgment
496 apl371.22
ladies entered in her house illegally and unauthorizedly
and disclosed that applicant No.2 and her husband have
sent them to vacate the said premises. Thus, except the
statements of the co-accused, there is nothing on record
to show involvement of the applicants in the alleged
offence.
10. Thus, prima facie case nowhere reveals against
the applicants from the investigation papers.
11. The law relating to quashing of FIRs has been
explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State
of Haryana and ors vs. Bhajan Lal and ors, reported in
1992 Supplementary (1) SCC 335 wherein principles
have been laid down which are required to be
considered while considering applications for quashing
of the FIRs, which read as under:
.....9/-
Judgment
496 apl371.22
(a) 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;
(b) where the allegations in the First
Information Report and other materials, if
any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except under an order of
a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or 'complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same do
.....10/-
Judgment
496 apl371.22
not disclose the commission of any offence
and make out a case against the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused;
.....11/-
Judgment
496 apl371.22
(f) where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code
or the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress
for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(g) 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 this view of the matter, since no prima facie
case is made out against the applicants, the application
deserves to be allowed as per order below:
.....12/-
Judgment
496 apl371.22
ORDER
(1) The Criminal Application is Allowed.
(2) FIR bearing registration No.61/2019 registered under
Sections 452, 323, 504, and 506 read with 34 of the IPC
and consequent proceeding arising out of the same i.e.
RCC No.740/2019 are hereby quashed and set aside to
the extent of applicant No.1 Mahavir s/o Davalji Nagrale
and applicant No.2 Kamal w/o Mahavir Nagrale.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(NANDESH S.DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
!! BrWankhede !!
Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../-
Date: 14/11/2025 10:06:40
