Bombay High Court

Dr. Sandip S/O Sahebrao Arsad vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 19 November, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:12458-DB

                                                                         1                                 J APL-575-2024.odt


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                      CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.575 OF 2024
               APPLICANT                                  :        Dr. Sandip S/o Sahebrao Arsad,
                                                                   Aged 51 years, Occ: Medical Practitioner, R/o
                                                                   "Darpan Jawahar Nagar, Akola.

                                                                   ..VERSUS..
               NON-APPLICANTS                             : 1. State of Maharashtra,
                                                               Through Police Station Officer, Police
                                                               Station Shegaon City, Tq. Shegaon, Dist.
                                                               Buldhana.
                                                              2. Shri. Gopal S/o Chandrabhan Hadole,
                                                                   Aged 50 years, Occ : Business, R/o Near
                                                                   Narayan Maharaj Sansthan, Balapur Road,
                                                                   Tq. Balapur, Dist : Akola.

                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Mr Anil Mardikar, Senior Advocate a/b Mr Swapnil S. Shingane, Advocate for Applicant.
                Mrs Swati Kolhe, Addl. P. P. for Non-Applicant/State.
                Mr Sanket Joshi, Advocate for Non-Applicant No.2.
                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                CORAM                                     : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
                                                            NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
                RESERVED ON                               : 11th NOVEMBER, 2025.
                PRONOUNCED ON                             : 19th NOVEMBER, 2025.

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

. Heard.

2. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned

Counsel for the parties.

2 J APL-575-2024.odt

3. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing and setting aside

the First Information Report dated 03.03.2024 registered by the

non-applicant No.1 - Police Station Officer, Police Station

Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldhana vide crime No.0108 of

2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 468

and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The applicant further

prays for quashing and setting aside the order dated 29.02.2024

passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 2 nd Court, Shegaon

in Misc. Criminal Case No.313 of 2023, which led to filing of the

First Information Report as stated above.

4. Facts as depicted from the application are as under :

The applicant in the present case is a medical

practitioner and qualified as M.B.B.S. DVD. The non-applicant

No.2 is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of plot. In

the month of January and February - 2018, the non-applicant

No.2 approached the applicant through one Amit Kulkarni, who

was employee of Axis Bank, Branch at Akola, and offered to sell

his owned and possessed non agricultural plots situated at 3 J APL-575-2024.odt

Shegaon-Balapur Road in survey No.72 Mouza Shegaon having

plot Nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17.

Parties negotiated regarding intended transaction on 10.04.2018.

A notarized agreement to sell was entered into between the

applicant and non-applicant No.2 pursuant to which, the

applicant paid an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- to the non-applicant

No.2 through cheque. As per the said agreement, sale-deed

regarding the said plots was to be executed within 120 days. As

can be seen from the agreement in question that on the day of

execution of agreement to sell, the plots were mortgaged with

Axis Bank and State Bank of India. Therefore, the non-applicant

No.2 had assured to get the mortgaged discharged by repaying

the loan of those banks before the date of sale-deed.

5. It is further stated in the application that at the

insistence of non-applicant No.2, the applicant approached

Collector of Stamp, Buldhana by filing proceedings under

Section 31 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 and requested for

adjudication of valuation of market value of the said 9 plots on

the ground that those are situated out side the limit of Municipal 4 J APL-575-2024.odt

Council Shegaon. The said Authority after adjudication, fixed the

market value of the plots as Rs.49,50,380/-. After entering into

an agreement to sell for above 15 plots, the non-applicant No.2

could release only 9 plots from the State Bank of India. It is

further stated in the application that the non-applicant No.2

requested for execution of fresh agreement to sell of remaining 6

plots mortgaged with Axis Bank i.e. plot Nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 16 and 17

on assurance that the same shall be done after execution of sale-

deed of 9 plots which was released by the State Bank of India.

6. Therefore, on assurance of the non-applicant No.2,

a fresh agreement to sell was executed between applicant and

non-applicant No.2 on 08.02.2019 for the said 6 plots which

mentioned the consideration amount as Rs.36,47,130/-. On

25.03.2019, the non-applicant No.2 executed sale-deed of 9

plots out of 15 plots by accepting an amount of Rs.48,52,875/-.

It is further pertinent to mention that in the sale-deed, there is no

reference of amount of Rs.25,00,000/- paid on 10.04.2018 which

was paid when the initial agreement to sell was executed for all 15

plots. The applicant further states that in the agreement to sell 5 J APL-575-2024.odt

dated 10.02.2019, the non-applicant No.2 agreed to receive an

amount of Rs.25,00,000/- and remaining amount of

Rs.11,47,130/- on the condition that the non-applicant No.2 shall

clear the title by discharging the liability of Axis Bank, Akola. It is

further stated that if the title could not be cleared before

30.06.2019, the agreement shall stand cancelled and the

non-applicant No.2 shall return the amount of Rs.25,00,000/-

paid to him on 10.04.2018.

7. After execution of the second agreement to sell, the

non-applicant No.2 again insisted the applicant to apply under

Section 31 of the Stamp Act of 1899 for adjudication of market

value and on his insistence, the applicant on 25.04.2019,

submitted an application under Section 31 of the said Act to

Collector of Stamp, Buldhana.

8. However, since there was no response from the

non-applicant No.2 regarding execution of sale-deed of the

remaining 6 plots as per agreement to sell dated 08.02.2019 till

30.06.2019, the applicant persuaded the non-applicant No.2 to

return the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- paid at the time of 6 J APL-575-2024.odt

execution of first agreement to sell dated 10.04.2018. Therefore,

on 30.09.2019, the non-applicant No.2 issued two cheques of

Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- respectively returning the said

amount. However, to the utter dismay of the applicant, the said

cheques were dishonored on the ground of insufficient fund

which prompted the applicant herein to file an application under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 vide SCC

No.6087 of 2019 and SCC No.6088 of 2019 before the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Akola, which are pending for

consideration. Smelling something fishy, the applicant registered

the First Information Report against the non-applicant No.2 vide

Crime No.0464 of 2021 for offence punishable under Section

420 of the I.P.C. which was registered as Regular Criminal Case

No.465 of 2021, which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Shegaon.

9. In the backdrop of these facts, as per the applicant,

it appears that on 13.09.2023, the non-applicant No.2 filed a

complaint under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code

against the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 406, 7 J APL-575-2024.odt

417, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C. vide Cri. M. A. No.313 of 2023.

On 29.02.2024, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 2 nd Court,

Shegaon was pleased to pass an order of sending complaint to

non-applicant No.1 for investigation under Section 156(3) of the

Cr.P.C. and directed the non-applicant No.1 to submit a report

within one month. Thereafter, on 01.03.2024, the non-applicant

No.1 registered an offence against the applicant vide Crime

No.0108 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Section 406,

417, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C. It is this First Information Report,

which is challenged in the present application.

10. As per the allegations in the First Information

Report, out of 15 plots only 9 plots were purchased by the

applicant. It is further alleged that the applicant got the value of

land decreased by making proper application before the Stamp

Authorities and the sale-deed of 6 plots was not executed

therefore, the applicant obtained two cheques from non-applicant

No.2. It is further alleged in the First Information Report that

since the applicant did not get the sale-deed executed of 6 plots,

the non-applicant No.2 could not repay the amount of loan of 8 J APL-575-2024.odt

Axis Bank and therefore, the Axis Bank had taken possession of 6

plot due to which, the non-applicant No.2 suffered financial loss.

Thus, offences were registered as stated above. It is this First

Information Report which is challenged in the said application.

11. We have heard Mr. Anil Mardikar, learned Senior

counsel assisted by Mr. Swapnil Shingane, learned counsel for the

applicant as also Mrs. S. V. Kole, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the non-applicant/State and Mr. Sanket Joshi,

learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2.

12. The learned Senior counsel for the applicant, while

taking us through the record of the matter, vehemently submits

that lodging of the First Information Report is nothing but an

abuse of process of law. He further states that neither Section 406

nor Section 468 of the I.P.C. is attracted as there are no

ingredients to constitute the said offence in the First Information

Report. He further submits that the First Information Report

lodged by the non-applicant No.2 is only by way of a counter

blast and it would be seen it is nothing but the dispute which is 9 J APL-575-2024.odt

essential in civil nature which being tried to give the colour of

criminality.

13. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor while

opposing the contentions advanced by the learned Senior counsel

that prima facie reading of the First Information Report would

reveal that the offence complained of are made out and therefore,

inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. could not

be exercised at this stage.

14. The learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2

while supporting the contentions advanced by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the applicant has

committed the act of fraud by forging documents and willfully

abstaining from executing the sale-deed of remaining 6 plots,

thereby causing wrongful loss and prejudice to the non-applicant

No.2.

15. In the backdrop of these facts, we have perused the

First Information Report in question. The execution of two

agreements to sell and sale-deeds of 9 plots are not disputed. It is

also not disputed that it was the applicant who filed an 10 J APL-575-2024.odt

application against the non-applicant No.2 on 11.07.2021 which

culminated into the First Information Report being No.0464 of

2021 and which is pending for adjudication.

16. The First Information Report in question bearing

No.0108 of 2024 if read meaningfully, we are of the considered

view that the allegation against the applicant is that by omitting

to execute sale-deed of remaining 6 plots, he has committed an

offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 of the

I.P.C.

17. We are at the pains to understand that how

omission to execute sale-deed would constitute such an offence.

A meaningful reading of the First Information Report would

reveal that the non-applicant No.2 alleges that the applicant

intentionally and with mala fide intention refused to execute the

sale-deed of remaining 6 plots. However, that in our considered

view could not be an aspect which would attract the offences

punishable under various sections much less as mentioned in the

First Information Report. The dispute is essentially of a civil in

nature and the First Information Report lodged is nothing but a 11 J APL-575-2024.odt

grave abuse of process of law. in the backdrop of these facts, We

are of the considered opinion that the non-applicant No.2 has

chosen to abuse of the process of law to its hilt and manage to

lodge First Information Report by taking aid of the order of the

learned Magistrate passed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.

Now a days, there has been growing tendency of giving

criminality to a dispute which is essentially civil in nature. A

practice which has been deprecated by time an again by the

Hon'ble Apex Court, a beneficial reference in that regard can be

made to the judgment of A. M. Mohan vs. the State Represented

by SHO and Another, reported in MANU/SC/0227/2024.

18. In that view of the matter and as already stated

supra, the situation would squarely fall within the following well

laid down parameters by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

State of Haryana and Others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others,

reported in 1992 AIR 604 :

(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) ...........

12 J APL-575-2024.odt

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint 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;

(d) ...........

(e) ...........

(f) ...........

(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. In the instant case, the allegations made in the complaint, do clearly constitute a cognizable offence and this case does not call for the exercise of extraordinary or inherent powers of the High Court to quash the F.I.R. itself.

19. Admittedly, there is no entrustment or dominion

over property in violation of any direction of law which is a

per-requisite for attracting offence under Section 406 of the

Indian Penal Code. Furthermore, in view of the facts stated

hereinabove, there is no inducement for delivering of property as

admittedly a sale-deed has been executed with respect to nine

plots and cheques were given by non-applicant No.2 to applicant

voluntarily. Thus, it is not even the complainant's case that any

false document has been made to cause injury to constitute

ingredient of offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian

Penal Code. Since there is no forgery, question of using the said 13 J APL-575-2024.odt

forged document as genuine one does not arise to constitute

offence punishable under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

20. In vies of these facts, we are of the opinion that the

criminal proceedings initiated by the non-applicant No.2 are

actuated with ulterior motive and smacks of malafides amounting

to grave abuse of process of Court. The applicant has been made

to suffer for no fault on his part.

21. In that view of the matter, we think it fit to impose

exemplary costs on the non-applicant No.2 which would act as a

deterrent. In our view, as amplified herein above, the

non-applicant No.2 has not only put the applicant in dock but

has made him to knock the doors of the Court only because he

agreed to purchase the plots in question. We therefore pass the

following order :

ORDER

i) The application is allowed.

ii) The First Information Report dated 03.03.2024

registered by the non-applicant No.1 - Police Station Officer,

Police Station Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldhana vide crime 14 J APL-575-2024.odt

No.0108 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections

406, 417, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the

order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First

Class, 2nd Court, Shegaon in Misc. Criminal Case No.313 of

2023, are hereby quashed and set aside.

iii) The non-applicant No.2 to pay the amount of Rs.1 lakh

to the Chief Minister Relief Fund within 2 weeks from the date

of receipt of this judgment and report compliance of the said

order to this Court. We have been informed that the non-

applicant No.2 is lodged in prison. We request the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor to inform about the judgment to

the non-applicant No.2 through Superintendent of concerned

prison.

iv) Fees of the appointed counsel be quantified and paid as

per rules.

22. The application is disposed of in the above said

terms.