Bombay High Court
Vidyasagar S/O Kisansa Paralkar vs Pada Pira Yele And Others. on 14 October, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:10859
Cri wp 486.25.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 486/2025
1. Vidyasagar s/o Kisansa Paralkar,
Aged about 88 years, Occ: Retired
R/o: Plot No. 6, 'B' Wing, Bhupali Park,
Bankar Chauk, Kathegalli, Dwarka, Nashik.
Tah. & Dist. Nashik.
...PETITIONERS
(Ori.Non-applicant.)
VERSUS
1. Pada Pira Yele (dead)
Aged about - years, Occ : -
Earlier residing at Isalwadi, Tah: Motala,
Dist.Buldhana.
2. Chaitram Pada Yele,
aged about 81 yrs., Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Isalwadi, Tah. Motala, Dist. Buldhana.
3. Nana Pada Yele,
aged about 61 yrs., Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Isalwadi, Tah. Motal, Dist. Buldhana.
4. Namdev Pada Yele,
Aged about 56 yrs., Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Isalwadi, Tah. Motala, Dist. Buldhana.
5. Uma Pada Yele,
aged about 51 yrs., Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Isalwadi, Tah. Motala, Dist. Buldhana.
Cri wp 486.25.odt
2
6. Parbat Chindha Karangule,
Aged about 46 yrs., Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Isalwadi, Tah. Motal, Dist. Buldhana.
7. Pavsa Chindha Karangule,
Aged about 56 yrs., Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Isalwadi, Tah. Motala, Dist. Buldhana.
...RESPONDENT
(Ori.Applicants)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. S. Sammer, Advocate for petitioner,
Mr. D. I. Jain, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 7.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M. M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : 14.10.2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard.
2. By way of this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking quashment
of order dated 18.12.2024 as well as order dated 24.01.2019
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malkapur,
Dist. Buldhana in Criminal Revision No.4/2019 and learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Motala, Dist. Buldhana in
Regular Criminal Case No. 48/2013 respectively, wherein the
Cri wp 486.25.odt
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Motala discharged the
accused persons.
3. Brief facts appears to be that:
The petitioner filed a private complaint alleging the the
offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC"). It is the case of
the petitioner that the land bearing Survey No.1 situated at
Isalwadi is his ancestral property and after the death of his
father, the property was inherited by him, Prakash and Subhash
his brothers and his mother Lilabai. The respondent No.1
herein (dead) instituted a civil suit bearing No.133/1980 for
specific performance of contract against the petitioner, his
brothers and mother. The petitioner as well as his brothers and
mother Lilabai also filed a Civil Suit bearing RCS No. 202/1980
against the present respondent No.1. Both the suits were
decided on 17.03.1983 wherein R.C.S. No. 133/1980 filed by
the respondent No.1 was decreed and R.C.S. No. 202/1980
came to be dismissed. The appeal was filed against judgment
and order passed in RCS No.133/1980. The appeal was
Cri wp 486.25.odt
allowed by the District Court, Khamgaon on 29.03.2005 and
accordingly, the decree passed in favour of respondent No.1
herein was set aside. Against the same, second appeal was
preferred by the respondent No.1 along with an application for
condonation of delay before this Court. The application for
condonation of delay was rejected and accordingly the decree
passed by the Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal
No.26/1992 came to be confirmed.
4. However, in the interregnum, mutation entry No.23
came to be recorded in respect of Survey No. 1 in favour of the
respondent No.1. After recording of the mutation entry, the
disputed land was partitioned amongst the legal heirs of the
respondent No.1 and thereafter, legal heirs of respondent No.1
sold the disputed land to respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
5. Therefore, the petitioner filed a private complaint
against all the respondents alleging cheating and forgery. It is
alleged that with the help of Talathi and Revenue Authorities,
mutation entry No.23 came to be recorded in respect of Survey
Cri wp 486.25.odt
No.1 and the base for said entry was RCS No.87/1983 which
was decreed. It is alleged that the brother of the petitioner
Prakash filed suit in the year 1983 i.e. RCS No.87/1983 for
malicious prosecution which came to be dismissed on
30.07.1984 and accordingly on the wrong judgment and
decree, the mutation entry was recorded in the name of
respondent No.1. Thereafter, process was issued against the
respondents, accused appeared, complainant led his evidence
under Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
accordingly, the evidence was closed before framing of the
charge.
6. After going through the entire record, the Magistrate
found that the evidence is not sufficient to frame the charge and
accordingly under Section 245 of the Code by a reasoned order,
discharged the respondents herein. A revision was preferred by
the petitioner against the aforesaid order which came to be
rejected by an order dated 18.12.2024. Against both these
orders, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.
Cri wp 486.25.odt
7. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as
learned counsel for respondents. I have also gone through the
impugned orders and the material placed before this Court.
8. The moot point is the mutation entry No.23 which was
recorded in the name of respondent No.1. It appears from the
record that there are civil litigations going on since 1980. The
civil suits are filed by parties against each other for various
reliefs and those proceedings are still pending before various
Courts. Therefore, without going into detail of the these civil
litigations, the present writ petition can be decided. As per the
allegation of the petitioner, he is the owner of the disputed land
and it was inherited from his ancestors and the mutation entry
recorded in the name of respondent No.1 is on the basis of
forged documents. It appears from the record that the mutation
entry was recorded on 20.08.1984 on the basis of the order
passed in R.C.S. No.87/1983 dated 30.07.1984. It further
appears that R.C.S. No. 133/1980 filed by the respondent No.1
was decreed on 17.03.1983. However, that decree was set
aside in R.C.A. No.26/1992 in the year 2005. Meaning thereby,
Cri wp 486.25.odt
since 1983 to 2005, the decree passed in R.C.S. No.133/1980
was intact in favour of respondent No.1. It appears that on
wrong proceedings the mutation entry was taken. That by itself
will not amount to committing offence when the decree passed
in RCC No.133/1980 was intact till 2005. Between the
intervening period, it further appears that the said property was
partitioned and thereafter sold to respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
Though the proceedings against the mutation entry No.23 are
still going on and others civil litigations are also pending
between the parties, under such circumstances, it cannot be
said that the respondents have committed offence under
Sections 420, 465, 467 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The
dispute appears to be civil in nature and cannot be given colour
of criminal case and therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class has rightly discharged the accused under Section 245
of the Code by giving cogent reasons. Further, the Revisional
Court has also rejected the application of the petitioner by
giving detailed reasons and therefore, it can be said that there
are concurrent findings of facts. Even otherwise in view of the
Cri wp 486.25.odt
above discussion, there is no merit in the present petition and
hence the following order:-
I. Criminal Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly.
( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.)
Gohane
Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 14/10/2025 17:26:23
