Bombay High Court
Smita Yashwant Shitole vs The State Of Maharahstra And Ors on 7 October, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:43095
16-revn-269-2021.doc
Shabnoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SHABNOOR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.269 OF 2021
AYUB
PATHAN
Digitally signed by
SHABNOOR AYUB
PATHAN
Date: 2025.10.07
18:58:03 +0530 Smita Yashwant Shitole ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Rahul Kadam a/w Vedant Babar, for the applicant.
Mr. Sagar R. Agarkar, APP for the State - respondent.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : OCTOBER 7, 2025
P.C.:
1. The applicant has challenged the judgment and order dated
8 April 2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Pune in Criminal Revision Application No. 278 of 2016. By the said
order, the learned Judge allowed the revision filed by the
respondent and set aside the order of issuance of process in R.C.C.
No. 291 of 2014.
2. The brief facts necessary for deciding the present petition are
as follows. The complainant, Smita Yashwant Shitole, filed a
private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Khadki, on 1 September 2014, alleging commission of offences
punishable under Sections 420, 465, 471, and 504 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the present applicants.
The complaint came to be registered as R.C.C. No. 291 of 2014.
16-revn-269-2021.doc
3. The complainant stated that she had purchased land situated
at Pimple Nilakh, Pune, bearing Survey Nos. 18/2/9, 18/3A/1,
18/3B/1, and 18/3C/1, admeasuring 190 square meters, by a
registered Sale Deed No. 4866 of 1994 dated 12 September 1994.
She further stated that an adjoining plot admeasuring 360 square
meters was jointly purchased by her and one Pandurang Patil, of
which 275 square meters belonged to Mr. Patil and 85 square
meters to her.
4. The complainant claims that she had regularised her portion
by obtaining a Gunthewari Certificate and had constructed a
compound wall around it. It is alleged that Mr. Patil sold his 275
square meter portion to applicant no.1 under Sale Deed No.
3987/1999 dated 7 June 1999, wherein the southern boundary of
his property was shown as adjoining the complainant's plot.
Thereafter, applicant no.1 sold the said property to applicant no.2
by Sale Deed No. 5181/2013 dated 18 April 2013. The
complainant objected to the said transaction on the ground that, in
the sale deed, her property had been wrongly described as an 80
feet wide Development Plan Road (DP Road) on the southern side,
thereby misrepresenting the factual position. A public notice
regarding the proposed sale had been published in the newspaper
Dainik Prabhat on 28 March 2013, which the complainant did not
initially object to. Subsequently, she filed the present complaint.
The learned Magistrate, upon perusal of the complaint and
verification, took cognizance and issued process against the
applicants. The respondents challenged that order before the
Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 278 of 2016,
16-revn-269-2021.doc
which came to be allowed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Pune.
5. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the
Revisional Court's order is contrary to settled principles of law. He
argued that the complaint discloses all necessary ingredients of the
offences alleged, and therefore, the Revisional Court was not
justified in interfering with the well-reasoned order of issuance of
process passed by the learned Magistrate.
6. On careful examination of the record, it is clear that the
entire dispute arises out of the boundary and measurement of
immovable property. The allegations made in the complaint
essentially relate to whether the boundary of the complainant's
land has been correctly reflected in the sale deeds executed
between the parties. The documents placed on record show that
the complainant and the respondents have already filed a civil suit,
being Regular Civil Suit No. 123 of 2013, before the competent
Civil Court. The said suit concerns the same property and involves
the same issue regarding boundary and extent of ownership. This
clearly indicates that the dispute is of civil nature and is already
being examined by the Civil Court having jurisdiction over such
matters.
7. From the record, it also appears that the main grievance of
the complainant is that the respondents have sold the portion of
land which, according to her, forms part of her property. Such a
grievance directly concerns ownership and demarcation of land,
which can only be properly adjudicated through civil proceedings
16-revn-269-2021.doc
by leading evidence, conducting measurement, and verifying title
documents. The issue does not involve any act of deception or
fraudulent intention of the nature that would constitute a criminal
offence under Sections 420, 465, or 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
Therefore, the Revisional Court, after rightly assessing the nature
of the dispute, held that the matter is purely civil and allowed the
revision application. I find no infirmity in such conclusion.
8. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in
Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another ,
(2009) 8 SCC 751, supports this view. It has been further observed
that, for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code,
the deception must be established with intention to cheat at the
inception, and the person deceived must have suffered wrongful
loss as a result. In property disputes, it is usually the purchaser
who may be the victim, and not the original owner who merely
claims boundary error or measurement dispute.
9. Considering the material on record and the law laid down by
the Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that no criminal intent or
dishonest inducement is demonstrated in this case. The allegations
are confined to boundary demarcation and sale description, which
are already the subject of civil adjudication. There is no credible
evidence of forgery or cheating. Therefore, the order passed by the
Revisional Court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity
warranting interference. The revision application stands disposed
of accordingly.
16-revn-269-2021.doc
10. It is made clear that the observations made in this judgment
are only for the purpose of deciding the present criminal
proceedings. These observations shall not influence or affect the
merits of Regular Civil Suit No. 123 of 2013 or any other pending
civil proceeding between the parties, which shall be decided
independently on the basis of evidence led before the Civil Court.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
