Bombay High Court
Sanjit Ram Singh Sawan vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Aroli ... on 9 October, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:10502-DB
J-APL 1104-2025.odt 1/11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL)NO.1104/2025
Sanjit Ram Singh Sawan,
Aged about 45 yrs, Occ. Business,
R/o Kodamendhi, Tehsil: Mouda,
District: Nagpur, Maharashtra
... APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O. of Police Station
Aroli, Dist. Nagpur
2) Parshuram Chhagan Singh Sengar
Aged about 60 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o Plot No. 528, Chatanis Nagar,
Nagpur
...NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.S. Sitani, Advocate for applicant
Shri N.B. Jawade, APP for non-applicant No.1/State
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 30.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 09.10.2025
J-APL 1104-2025.odt 2/11
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 filed under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, for quashing the First Information Report bearing
No. 0390/2023, dated 14.12.2023, registered by the non-applicant
No.1, Police Station Aroli, District Nagpur, for the offence
punishable under Section 143, 147 and 427, of the Indian Penal
Code, against the applicant.
3. According to the prosecution, the First Information Report,
which is lodged on 14.12.2023, by the non-applicant No.2, alleging
therein that during an engagement function on his lawn on
04.12.2023, the applicant/accused Sanjit Sawan entered forcibly
with 20 to 25 people and created disturbance in front of the said
lawn. He further alleges that the applicant and other persons
forcefully entered the lawn by hitting the watchman of the lawn by
their four wheeler at the entrance. The non-applicant No. 2
requested the applicant to leave the premises, which was refused,
as a result of which, the non-applicant No.2 had to lock the
premises and complain to the police. It is further stated in the First
Information Report that on the next day, i.e. on 05.12.2023, the
applicant, along with 8 to 10 persons entered the lawn again and
damaged a statue of 'Radha Krushna'. On the basis of these
allegations, the First Information Report was lodged on 14.12.2023.
It is this First Information Report which is challenged in the present
application.
4. We have heard Shri S.S. Sitani, for the applicant, as also Shri
N.B. Jawade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant
No.1/State. The non-applicant No.2 has chosen not to appear in
spite of service.
5. Shri S.S. Sitani, learned Counsel for the applicant, submits
that there is a delay of 10 days and no plausible explanation has
been given for such delay, which casts doubt about the genuineness
and veracity of the said First Information Report. He further
submits that there is no specific role attributed to the present
applicant, and only to give colour of criminality to a civil matter, the
present First Information Report has been lodged.
6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
vehemently opposes the contentions raised by the learned Counsel
for the applicant and states that perusal of the First Information
Report is good enough to make out an offence.
7. The First Information Report in question is lodged for an
offence under Section 143, which speaks about unlawful assembly
and Section 147, which speaks about rioting and Section 427,
which speaks about mischief. As stated above, and a matter of fact,
the alleged incident is of 04.12.2023, and the First Information is
lodged on 14.12.2023. There is no explanation for the delay caused
in lodging of the First Information Report.
8. Furthermore,as a matter of fact the applicant herein has filed
a suit against the present non-applicant No.2, bearing Special Civil
Suit No. 255/2023, in which, the applicant has specifically alleged
that he is the lawful owner and in possession of Khasra No. 86,
admeasuring 2.60 hectares, situated at Mouza Indora, Tah. Mouda,
District Nagpur. As can further be seen from the averments made in
the plaint, the defendant i.e. non-applicant No.2 sold the said piece
of land to the plaintiff in the suit i.e. the applicant herein, for a sum
of Rs.25,00,000/-on 11.03.2022, by executing a registered sale
deed in that behalf. The plaint further shows that the applicant
constructed a lawn over the said piece of land and has invested a
huge amount therein. After completion of construction, the
applicant has started a lawn, namely "Radha Krushna Celebration
Hall and Lawn" therein, and is carrying on business from the same.
9. The adjoining land is owned and possessed by the non-
applicant No.2, and looking to the fact that the business of the
applicant is prospering, the non-applicant No.2 was pressurizing
him to resell the land to him, to which, the applicant refused. We
have also gone through the order passed by the learned Civil Judge
Senior Division, Nagpur, on 03.01.2024, restraining the defendant
from entering the suit property till the conclusion of the hearing of
the application for temporary injunction. When inquired, the
learned Counsel for the applicant states that the said order is still
holding the field, and the application for temporary injunction has
not been heard as yet.
10. In view of these facts, it can be inferred that since the non-
applicant No.2, was pressurizing the applicant, to resell the land in
question, and as the applicant was not acceding to his request, the
present First Information Report seems to be lodged.
11. Furthermore, there are allegations regarding the incidents
dated 04.12.2023 and 05.12.2023. The allegations are lacking in
material particulars, and no corroborative evidence has been placed
on record to support the said allegations. In that view of the matter,
we are of the considered opinion that the First Information Report
in question is filed only as a result of a vindictive attitude and to
somehow make the applicant succumb to the demand of the non-
applicant No.2, for selling the property to him, and as a pressure
tactics. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that no
offence is made out against the present applicant and the dispute is
essentially of civil nature. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of A.M. Mohan Vs. State Represented By SHO and another,
(2024) 12 SCC 181, there is a growing tendency amongst the
litigants to somehow give a criminality to an offence or an act
which is essentially civil in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held
as under :
"18. The law with regard to exercise of jurisdiction
under Section 482 CrPC to quash complaints and
criminal proceedings has been succinctly summarised by
this Court in Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. after
considering the earlier precedents. It will be apposite to
refer to the following observations of this Court in the
said case, which read thus : (SCC pp. 747-49, paras 12-
14)
"12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to
quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been
stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions.
To mention a few - Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal, Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill,
CBI v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., State of Bihar v.
Rajendra Agrawalla, Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi,
Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd.
10, Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, M.
Krishnan v. Vijay Singh 12 and Zandu Pharmaceutical
Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque 13. The principles,
relevant to our purpose are:
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations
made in 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 the case alleged
against the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a
whole, but without examining the merits of the
allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous
analysis of the material nor an assessment of the
reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the
complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for
quashing of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear
abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal
proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala
fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm,
or where the allegations are absurd and inherently
improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to
stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power
should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce
the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the
necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint,
merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not
been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be
quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only
where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts
which are absolutely necessary for making out the
offence.
(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil
wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil
wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial
transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from
furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil
law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature
and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a
criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint
relates to a commercial transaction or breach of
contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has
been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the
criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations
in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.
13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a
growing tendency in business circles to convert purely
civil disputes into criminal cases. 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. Such a tendency is seen in
several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable
breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an
impression that if a person could somehow be entangled
in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of
imminent 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. In G. Sagar Suri
v. State of U.P.14 this Court observed: (SCC p. 643, para
8)
8. ... It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a
civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence.
Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other
remedies available in law. Before issuing process a
criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For
the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid
certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is
to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised
to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice."
14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance
should be prevented from seeking remedies available in
criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists
with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal
proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in
civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end
of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in
accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken
by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and
harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their
power under Section 250 CrPC more frequently, where
they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives
on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may."
19. The Court has also noted in Indian Oil Corpn., the
concern with regard to a 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. The Court also recorded
that there is an impression that if a person could
somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there
is a likelihood of imminent settlement. The Court,
relying on the law laid down by it in G. Sagar Suri v.
State of U.P.14 held that 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. The Court also
observed that though no one with a legitimate cause or
grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies
available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or
persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the
criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy
lies only in civil law, should himself be made
accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal
proceedings, in accordance with law."
12. We therefor, quash the First Information Report bearing No.
0390/2023, dated 14.12.2023, registered by the non-applicant
No.1, Police Station Aroli, District Nagpur, for the offence
punishable under Section 143, 147 and 427 of the Indian Penal
Code. Accordingly, we proceed to pass following order :
ORDER
i) The application is allowed.
ii) The the First Information Report bearing No. 0390/2023,
dated 14.12.2023, registered by the non-applicant No.1, Police
Station Aroli, District Nagpur, for the offence punishable under
Section 143, 147 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby
quashed and set aside against the present applicant.
13. The application is disposed of.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Jayashree..
