Bombay High Court
Vikash Vishwanath Goyal And 4 Others vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Old Kamptee Tah. ... on 8 October, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:10412-DB
J-APL 616-2020.odt 1/9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL)NO.616/2020
1) Shri Vikash Vishwanath Goyal,
Aged 42 Years, Occ. Business,
2) Shri Amit Vishwanath Goyal,
Aged 40 Years, Occ. Business,
Both R/o. 23 A the Mall Road,
Cantonment area, Kamptee,
Distt Nagpur.
3) Shri Vipendra Shrawan Agarwal,
Aged 55 Years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Kalpatru Colony, Kamptee,
Distt Nagpur.
4) Shri Gaurav Mahendra Butani,
Aged 40 Years, Occ. Business,
R/o. 96 the Mall Road, Cantonment
area, Kamptee, Distt Nagpur.
5) Shri Sanjay Zanjad,
Aged 45 Years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Near Ranala Gram Panchayat,
Kamptee, Distt Nagpur.
... APPLICANTS
...VERSUS...
1) State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O. of Police Station
Old Kamptee, Tah Kmaptee,
Distt Nagpur.
J-APL 616-2020.odt 2/9
2) Shri Surendra @ Sonu Tambi
Pillay, Aged about Major, Occ.
Not known, R/o. Old Godown,
Kamptee, Tah Kamptee, Distt
Nagpur
...NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.O. Ahmed, Advocate for applicants
Ms H.N. Prabhu, APP for non-applicant No.1/State
Shri Amit Khare, Advocate for non-applicant No.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 29.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 08.10.2025
JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned
Counsel for both the parties.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), for quashing the First
Information Report (for short 'FIR'), bearing No. 0064/2020, dated
13.03.2020, registered by the non applicant no.1 -Police Station
Old Kamptee, Tah Kamptee, Distt Nagpur, for the offence
punishable under Sections 143, 323, 452 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, (for short 'IPC'), against the present applicants. As per
the averments in the said FIR, the non-applicant No.2 lodged a
report with the non-applicant No.1, stating therein that on
12.03.2020, the applicants had tried to trespass into the house
bearing No. 23, which is originally owned by one Bedi family. The
non-applicant No.2, claimed that he was inducted as a tenant in the
said house by one Manisingh Bedi and was residing in the same. It
is further alleged that the applicants on 12.03.2020, at about 11.30
a.m., broke the lock and removed the articles from the house which
was owned and possessed by him, and further beat him and his
associates, and also threatened him of dire consequences. During
the pendency of the present application, a charge-sheet came to be
filed, in which, offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC, as
mentioned in the FIR No. 0064/2020, has been dropped/removed,
and accordingly, the applicants have amended the present
application challenging the said charge-sheet No. 136/2024, dated
26.06.2024, as well.
3. We have heard Shri S.O. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the
applicants, Ms H.N. Prabhu, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.1/State and Shri Amit Khare,
learned Counsel for the non-applicant No.1, learned Counsel for
non-applicant No.2/State.
4. Learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the
applicants are residing in the said house since their childhood, and
they were born in the said house, as it was rented to their father by
the said Bedi family. They also submit that the land owner, Shri.
Pavneetsingh Bedi was regularly receiving rent from them till
March, 2020, but just to harass the applicants and to take forcible
possession of the said bungalow, the said land owner, taking aid of
the present non-applicant No.2, is trying to take forcible possession
of the said bungalow from the applicants. Learned Counsel further
points out that before lodging of the FIR No. 64/2020 (which is
challenged in the present application), they have lodged an FIR
against the present non-applicant No.2, bearing FIR No. 63/2020,
on the same day i.e. 13.03.2020. He, therefore, submits that this is
a case of cross FIRs and since they are inducted as tenants and
continued to be so, there cannot be any criminal trespass over the
property.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,
vehemently opposes the contentions made by the learned Counsel
for the applicants and states that the averments in the FIR are
sufficient enough to make out an offence punishable under the said
Sections. She further submits that the investigating agency has
recorded the statements of the complainant and the injured
witnesses, and the injury report shows injuries. She, therefore,
prays for rejection of the application.
6. Learned Counsel for the non-applicant No.2, also supports
learned Additional Public Prosecutor and states that the material
collected by the investigating agency, which contains statements of
the witnesses, sufficiently indict the applicants, and therefore, it
would be proper to quash the FIR at such a primitive stage.
7. In light of these facts, we have perused the FIR, as also the
charge-sheet in question. As stated supra, initially, the FIR was
lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323 and
452 of the IPC. It is a matter of record that the offence under
Section 452 of the IPC, which speaks about criminal trespass.
Section 452 has been dropped from the charge-sheet, and now
what remains are offences punishable under Sections 143 and 323
of the IPC. Section 143 of the IPC speaks about punishment for
unlawful assembly, while Section 141 defines unlawful assembly to
be an assembly of five or more persons, if the common object of
those persons composing that assembly is within the five
contingencies mentioned in the said section. Section 323 speaks
about punishment for voluntarily causing hurt, while Section 321
defines the phrase voluntarily causing hurt, which means any act
with the intention of causing hurt to any person, or with the
knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt.
8. A meaningful reading of the facts enumerated in the FIR, as
well as the relevant legal provisions mentioned supra, would reveal
that no ingredient of any of the offences as mentioned in the
charge-sheet is made out. There is no material to substantiate an
offence punishable under Section 143 of the IPC, as also Section
323 of the said Code.
9. We cannot lose sight of the fact that initially it was the
applicants herein who had lodged the FIR against the non-applicant
No.2 and offence punishable under Sections 395 and 452 of the
IPC, were registered against the present non-applicant No.2. This
fact assumes importance more particularly when, admittedly the
applicants have filed a civil suit bearing RCS No. 21/2020, against
the owner of the property, namely Pavneetsingh Jogindarsingh Bedi,
in which, an order injuncting the defendant therein has been passed
on 04.11.2020. When confronted, the learned Counsel for the
applicants states that the said order is still in force and the civil suit
is pending for adjudication. As can be seen from the said order, the
defendant (i.e., the owner of the property), his agents, servants, or
anybody on his behalf, are temporarily restrained from disturbing
the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs (applicants herein), over the
suit property. It can therefore, be inferred that since the defendant
i.e., the original owner, is restrained by an order of the Civil Court,
he has tried to take forcible possession of the property in question
through the non-applicant No.2.
10. It is, therefore, clear that the story as averred in the FIR is
just a counterblast and by way of an afterthought. Thus, no offence,
much less as stated in the FIR and the consequent charge-sheet, can
be said to be made out against the accused, in view of these facts.
The situation would squarely fall within the parameters of State of
Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335, and more particularly Clause 1, 3 and 7 thereof :
"102.................
(1) 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.
(2) ...
(3) ...
(4) .
(5) ...
(6) ...
(7) 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."
11. We, therefore, inclined to allow the present application.
Accordingly we proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
i) The application is allowed.
ii) The First Information Report No. 0064/2020, dated
13.03.2020, registered by the non applicant no.1 -Police Station
Old Kamptee, Tah Kamptee, Distt Nagpur, for the offence
punishable under Sections 143, 323, 452 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, as also, charge-sheet No. 136/2024, dated 26.06.2024,
registered by the non-applicant No.1, Police Station Old Kamptee,
Tah Kamptee, Distt. Nagpur, for the offence punishable under
Section 143 and 323 of the IPC, are hereby quashed.
12. The application is disposed of.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Jayashree..
