Bombay High Court
Sanjay Padmakar Darandale And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 4 September, 2025
Author: Nitin B. Suryawanshi
Bench: Nitin B. Suryawanshi
2025:BHC-AUG:23615-DB
{1} WP-306-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 306 OF 2023
1. Sanjay S/o Padmakar Darandale
Age: 52 years, Occu: Agril,
R/o. Landewadi, Tal-Newasa,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. Rushikesh S/o Sanjay Darandale
Age: 22 years, Occu: Education,
R/o. Landewadi, Tal-Newasa,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
3. Ravindra S/o Kondiram Harde
Age: 32 years, Occu: Agril,
R/o. Belekarwadi, Tal-Newasa,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
4. Baban S/o Padmakar Darandale
Age: 56 years, Occu. Agril,
R/o. Landewadi, Tal-Newasa,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONERS
[Orig. Accused]
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Police Inspector,
Sonai Police Station, Sonai,
Tal. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar,
Tal. & Dist. Ahmednagar.
3. Bharat S/o Ramrao Jadhav
Age: 44 years, Occu. Advocate,
R/o. Sonai, Tal- Newasa,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS
Mr. K.N. Shermale, Advocate for petitioners
Mr. A.S. Gandhi, Advocate for respondent No. 3
Mr. N.S. Tekale, APP for respondent No. 1 and 2-State
Bhagyawant Punde
{2} WP-306-2023
.......
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 19th AUGUST, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON: 04th SEPTEMBER, 2025
JUDGMENT:
[PER NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the
consent of parties heard finally at the admission stage.
2. Petitioners by this petition filed under Article 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, seek quashing of FIR No. 0150 of 2021
dated 09.05.2021 registered with Sonai Police Station, Sonai,
Taluka- Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar for offence under Section 379
r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
3. Respondent No. 3 lodged FIR against the petitioners
in short alleging that, he and his family members purchased the
property Gut No. 150 (for short "the said land") of Namrata Attal
and Vishal Attal through power of attorney holder Rajendra
Shrinivas Attal by executing a registered sale deed. At the time
of purchase of said land, there was standing sugarcane crop in
the said land. Informant registered the sugarcane crop with Mula
Sugar Factory, Sonai, in the name of his mother and brother. On
Bhagyawant Punde
{3} WP-306-2023
04.05.2021 at about 06.00 am informant went to the said land,
at that time, sugarcane crop was standing in the land. On
06.05.2021 at about 2.30 pm, he came to know that petitioners
are cutting the sugarcane and transporting it. Therefore, he went
to the said land and saw that petitioners were cutting the
sugarcane with the help of harvester and were transporting it in
the truck and tractor. Since he reached there, they left the said
land by leaving the sugarcane in 3 Ghunta area. He tried to
inquire as to where stolen sugarcane was disposed of. However,
he could not get any information. Therefore, he realized that
petitioners have stolen the sugarcane crop from the said land.
He therefore lodged FIR on 09.05.2021.
4. Pursuant to the investigation, charge sheet came to
be filed in the crime and case is registered as Regular Criminal
Case No. 716 of 2023, petitioners seek quashing of the same.
5. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners, learned
APP for State and learned advocate for respondent No. 3.
6. Learned advocate for the petitioners by relying on
Mohd. Khalid Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 1,
1 (2015) 15 SCC 679
Bhagyawant Punde
{4} WP-306-2023
Govind Prasad Kejriwal Vs. State of Bihar and Another 2, decision
in Urmila Devi and Others Vs. Balram & Another 3 and
Mohammad Wajid & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Others 4
submitted that civil dispute in respect of said land is converted
into a criminal prosecution by the respondent No. 3. By pointing
out documents in the charge sheet he submitted that sugarcane
registered in the name of Petitioner No. 3 with Sanganmer Sugar
Factory from Gut No. 99 at Ganeshwadi was given to that sugar
factory. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioners have stolen
the sugarcane of the informant. He submitted that there is
dispute in respect of possession of land Gut No. 150 for which
Regular Civil Suit No. 89 of 2021 is filed by the informant and his
mother and brother seeking declaration that they are owners
and possessors of said land and petitioners should not obstruct
the peaceful possession of the informant. He further submitted
that by filing written statement the said suit is opposed by the
petitioners. He further submitted that Regular Civil Suit No. 646
of 2022 is filed by daughter of Petitioner No. 1 for partition and
separate possession and for a declaration that sale deed
executed by Petitioner No. 1 in favour of Rajendra Attal is null
2 (2020) 16 SCC 714
3 Criminal Appeal No. 3300 of 2025
4 Criminal Appeal No. 2340 of 2023
Bhagyawant Punde
{5} WP-306-2023
and void. He therefore submitted that only with a view to
pressurize the petitioners in the civil suit they are falsely
implicated in the present crime. He submitted that there is delay
in lodging FIR. Since, the civil dispute is going on between the
parties, prosecution against the petitioners is liable to be
quashed.
7. Learned APP and learned advocate for informant/
respondent No. 3 strenuously opposed the petition. They
submitted that there is sufficient material on record to show the
involvement of petitioners in the present crime. They pointed out
that sugarcane from the said land was registered by informant
with Mula Sugar Factory in the name of his mother and brother.
It is further pointed out that competent Civil Court has issued
injunction in favour of respondent No. 3 thereby prohibiting
petitioners from interfering in his peaceful possession of the
property. Since the petitioners breached that injunction,
respondent No. 3 has filed second complaint against the
petitioners. The witness who has seen petitioners carrying away
sugarcane from the said land of respondent No. 3 was
threatened by the petitioners, hence, he has lodged complaint
against petitioners, which is registered as non cognizable case.
Bhagyawant Punde
{6} WP-306-2023
There is no merit in the contention of petitioners that this is a
civil dispute, which is converted into criminal prosecution. They,
therefore, submitted that prima facie there is sufficient material
on record to conduct criminal trial against the petitioners.
8. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners, learned
APP for State and learned advocate for respondent No. 3 at
length. With their assistance we have perused the record and
citations relied upon by the petitioners.
9. Record indicates that in the charge sheet, there is a
statement of adjacent land owner Sachin Ghavte who has seen
the petitioners cutting sugarcane from the said land of
respondent No. 3 with the help of harvester and carrying it away
in truck and tractor. There is also a statement of owner of
harvester stating that on 05.05.2021 Petitioner No. 3 came to
him and requested him to harvest his sugarcane from the field
situated in Landewadi Shivar as the sugarcane was not
harvested by the sugarcane factory as there was dispute
between him and his brother. He wanted harvester for harvesting
sugarcane and he intended to sell the sugarcane to Sangamner
Sugar Factory. Accordingly, he accompanied Petitioner No. 3 to
the sugarcane field. When they started harvesting the
Bhagyawant Punde
{7} WP-306-2023
sugarcane, he received a phone call from one Pankaj Jadhav
stating that sugarcane field belongs to him and they should not
harvest the sugarcane. He threfore left the field. There is also a
statement of Rajendra Attal from whom respondent No. 3 has
purchased the said land. He has stated that he has sold the said
land to respondent No. 3 on 17.03.2020 and at the time of sale,
sugarcane crop was standing in the said land. The sugarcane of
respondent No. 3 from the said land was registered with Mula
Sugar Factory, which is clear from the letter issued by said sugar
factory dated 26.04.2021, wherein it is stated that adjacent
agriculturists prevented harvesting of the sugarcane crop,
therefore, they have not harvested the crop. The spot
panchnama conducted during the investigation also shows that
sugarcane crop in the said land was harvested. Thus, there
appears prima facie material on record to show that petitioners
have taken away the sugarcane crop from the said land.
10. We have carefully perused the FIR and material
collected during the investigation. In our opinion it cannot be
said that FIR does not disclose commission of offence. Whether
or not the allegations made in the FIR are true has to be decided
on the basis of evidence to be led at the trial. There is no such
Bhagyawant Punde
{8} WP-306-2023
inordinate delay in lodging FIR which at this stage can be said to
be fatal to the prosecution. In the facts of the present case,
ground of delay in lodging FIR therefore cannot be considered as
valid ground for quashing the FIR against the petitioners.
11. There is no merit in the contention of the petitioners
that since there is civil dispute pending between the parties,
same is being converted into criminal prosecution by the
informant. It is necessary to mention here that FIR is lodged in
the year 2021 whereas the civil suit is filed subsequently in the
year 2022. While considering the prayer of the petitioners, we
cannot conduct mini trial and go into the aspect as to whether
there is substance in the allegations made in the FIR. We have to
take FIR as it is without adding or subtracting anything and to
see whether allegations made in the FIR, prima facie make out a
case against the petitioners.
12. In Mohd. Khalid Khan (supra) the Apex Court has
observed that, High Court by relying on prima facie incorrect
facts refused to quash the proceedings. Civil Suit and appeal
concerning dispute between the parties related to ownership of
lands was pending. Validity of hiba [oral gift] involved in the
dispute. In these facts, it was held that at this stage no criminal
Bhagyawant Punde
{9} WP-306-2023
case was made out against appellant-accused. Hence,
proceedings was quashed.
This decision is rendered in different facts.
13. In Govind Kejriwal (supra), cognizance taken in a
complaint case by the Trial Court was quashed holding that, no
prima facie case is made out by the complainant therein and the
dispute was purely of civil nature.
Such are not the facts of the present case.
14. In Mohammad Wajid (supra) it was held that,
criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be a sole
consideration to decline to quash the criminal proceedings.
15. In Urmila Devi (supra) in the facts of that case the
Supreme Court did not find that offences of conspiracy to
fabricate a forged will after the death of testator, which was then
used to circumvent the sale deed were made out against the
accused/appellant therein. Hence, proceedings in the complaint
case against the appellant therein were quashed.
This decision is also rendered in different facts and
therefore is of no help to the petitioners.
Bhagyawant Punde
{10} WP-306-2023
16. For the aforestated reasons, we find no merit in the
writ petition. Writ petition is therefore dismissed. Rule is
discharged.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
Bhagyawant Punde
