Bombay High Court
Vanmala Gajanan Panpate vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps on 30 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:10026-DB
J-apl359.25 final.odt 1/12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.359 OF 2025
1. Vanmala w/o. Gajanan Panpate,
Aged 55 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
2. Ashish s/o. Gajanan Panpate,
Aged 33 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
Both Applicants R/o. Bhabulgaon,
Taluka Patur, District Akola. : APPLICANTS
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Patur,
District Akola.
2. Pradip s/o. Jairam Bakhade,
Aged 52 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Mazod, Talika Patur,
District Akola. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. Ankush M. Tirukh, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. M.J. Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Omprakash Y. Kashid, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2025.
J-apl359.25 final.odt 2/12
JUDGMENT :
(Per : Nandesh S. Deshpande)
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This is an application seeking quashing of First
Information Report bearing Crime No.30/2025, dated 1.2.2025,
registered with Police Station Patur, District Akola, for the offences
punishable under Sections 415, 420, 423, 424, 441, 463, 464, 465,
468, 471, 474 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This
First Information Report is lodged by the non-applicant No.2
alleging that he along with one Kiran Joshi had purchased land
admeasuring 1.42 HR, out of Survey No.7 of village Babhulgaon,
Taluka Patur, District Akola. Thereafter, these two persons
converted the said land into Gunthewari Plots bearing
Nos.601,602, 623, 625, 628 and 629. The accused Nos.2 to 5
purchased these six plots by different sale-deeds from the accused
No.1. The present applicants, who are accused Nos.2 and 3 have
purchased Plot Nos.623 and 625 from the accused No.1. It is
further stated that on 24.9.2021 one Kiran Joshi, who is the co-
owner of Gut No.7 along with respondent No.2 executed one
power-of-attorney in favour of respondent No.2 authorizing him to
do all necessary things in respect of said Gut. The respondent No.2
on 25.7.2022 executed one Vikrinama in favour of accused
No.1/Gajanan Ayaskar. Name of Gajanan Ayaskar has also been
mutated in the Gram Panchayat report. In the backdrop of these
facts the respondent No.2 filed a Complaint against applicants and
four other persons before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class under
Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code bearing Misc.
Criminal Application No.137/2024 on 8.11.2024. In the complaint
it is alleged by the respondent No.2 that accused Nos.1 to 6 have
without any authority executed a false and fabricated sale-deed and
thus have committed an offence of cheating and forgery.
3. Thereafter, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patur by
its order dated 3.1.2025 allowed the application and directed the
respondent No.1 to register the First Information Report,
consequent to which F.I.R. vide Crime No.30/2025 is registered.
This F.I.R. is challenged in the present application.
4. We have heard Mr. Ankush M Tirukh, learned counsel
for the applicant, Mr. M.J. Khan, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Omprakash Y. Kashid,
learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants Mr. Ankush Tirukh
submits that even if the allegations in the F.I.R. are taken in its
entirety no offence is made out as far as present applicants are
concerned, since they are bona fide and subsequent purchasers
having purchased Plots in question by parting with valuable
consideration. It is his further submission that dispute in the
instant matter is predominantly of civil nature which is cleverly
converted by respondent No.2 into a criminal case. He, therefore,
prays that the F.I.R. in question needs to be quashed as continuance
of criminal trial would amount to abuse of process.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. M.J.
Khan vehemently opposed the contentions canvassed by the
learned counsel for the applicants, as states that during the
investigation it is revealed that on 14.8.2017 the respondent No.2
along with one Kiran Josi has purchased the land admeasuring 1.42
hec, out of Survey No.7 of village Babhulgaon, Taluka Patur, District
Akola. He further states that the applicants are not bona fide
purchasers as the co-accused Gajanan Ayaskar, who is a vendor of
the present applicants is not a bona fide purchaser. He further
submits that the offence is squarely made out from the averments
made in the F.I.R.
7. Mr. Omprakash Kashid, learned counsel for respondent
No.2 also supports the Additional Public Prosecutor and states that
the applicants in the present matter along with co-accused with
common intention deceived the respondent No.2 and prepared
forged document while endorsing fake signatures of the applicants.
He further states that there is a prima facie case against the accused
which would need a complete trial.
8. We have perused the averments made in the question.
The core question in the present matter would be whether the
averments made in the F.I.R. would constitute a criminal offence or
is of purely civil in nature. In a recent judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of A.M. Mohan Vs. State represented by
SHO and anothr, reported in (2024) 12 SCC 181, in para 18 the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :
"18. The law with regard to exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash
complaints and criminal proceedings has been
succinctly summarized by this Court in the case of
Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited and
Others1 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:
"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 [(1988)
1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234], State of Haryana
v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC
(Cri) 426], Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh
Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059],
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro
Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri)
1045], State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996)
8 SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628], Rajesh Bajaj v.
State NCT of Delhi [(1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC
(Cri) 401], Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v.
Biological E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC
(Cri) 615], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of
Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786], M.
Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [(2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002
SCC (Cri) 19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.
v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005
SCC (Cri) 283]. 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. [(2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC
(Cri) 513] 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."
9. Furthermore, in the same judgment in para 20 this Court
has held as under :
This Court, in the case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy
and Another v. Sudha Seetharam and Another has
culled out the ingredients to constitute the offence
under Sections 415 and 420 of IPC, as under:
"15. Section 415 of the Penal Code reads
thus:
"415. Cheating.- Whoever, by deceiving
any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the
person so deceived to deliver any property to any
person, or to consent that any person shall retain
any property, or intentionally induces the person so
deceived to do or omit to do anything which he
would not do or omit if he were not so deceived,
and which act or omission causes or is likely to
cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind,
reputation or property, is said to "cheat"."
16. The ingredients to constitute an
offence of cheating are as follows:
16.1. There should be fraudulent or
dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him:
16.1.1. The person so induced should be
intentionally induced to deliver any property to any
person or to consent that any person shall retain any
property, or
16.1.2. The person so induced should be
intentionally induced to do or to omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit if he were
not so deceived; and
16.2. In cases covered by 16.1.2. above,
the act or omission should be one which caused or is
likely to cause damage or harm to the person
induced in body, mind, reputation or property.
17. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement
is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person
who dishonestly induces another person to deliver
any property is liable for the offence of cheating.
18. Section 420 of the Penal Code reads thus:
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing
delivery of property.- Whoever cheats and thereby
dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver
any property to any person, or to make, alter or
destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security,
or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is
capable of being converted into a valuable security,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven
years, and shall also be liable to fine."
19. The ingredients to constitute an
offence under Section 420 are as follows:
19.1. A person must commit the offence
of cheating under Section 415; and
19.2. The person cheated must be
dishonestly induced to (a) deliver property to any
person; or (b) make, alter or destroy valuable
security or anything signed or sealed and capable of
being converted into valuable security.
20. Cheating is an essential ingredient for
an act to constitute an offence under Section 420."
10. It can thus be seen that there is a growing tendency in
business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases.
It 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. Thus, there is an impression that if a
person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution,
there is a likelihood of imminent settlement.
11. A fraudulent, fabricated or forged deed could mean a
deed which was not executed but a deed which had fraudulently
been manufactured by forging the signature of ostensible
executants.
12. In the backdrop of these facts if the allegations in the
F.I.R. in question are perused minutely even as per those allegations
the applicants who are accused Nos.2 and 3 in the F.I.R. have
purchased the Plots in question from the accused No.1 Gajanan
vide sale-deed dated 12.4.2024. It is nobody's case that sale-deeds
are not executed and are void. The only contention of the
respondent No.2 is that the accused No.1 Gajanan had no valid and
alienable title over the property. However, the present applicants
are not concerned with the validity or otherwise of the title of their
vendor. They have purchased the property after verifying the title
as the name of their vendor was mutated in the records of the Gram
Panchayat as the said Gram Panchayat gave no objection certifying
that said vendor is owner of the Plots in question. It, therefore,
cannot be said that the present applicants have practised in
cheating or caused dishonest inducement property which is a sine
qua non for attracting the offences punishable under Section
mentioned in the F.I.R. Furthermore, there is nobody's case that
documents conferring title on the present applicants are forged to
attract offences punishable under Sections 463, 468 and 471 of the
Indian Penal Code. The scenario would thus be covered by various
parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, reported
in 1992 Supplementary (1) SCC 335 and more particularly clause
1,3 and 7 of para 102 of the judgment.
"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.
3. Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or complaint and
the evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
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."
13. It would, therefore, be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, we
proceed to pass following order :
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) The First Information Report bearing Crime
No.30/2025, dated 1.2.2025, registered with Police Station Patur,
District Akola, for the offences punishable under Sections 415, 420,
423, 424, 441, 463, 464, 465, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed, as far as the present
applicants are concerned.
(iii) The respondent No.2 shall pay costs of
Rs.25,000/- to the present applicants within two weeks for
misusing the Police machinery against them.
(iv) Compliance regarding payment of costs to be
reported to this Court.
(v) We are imposing the above costs, as stated in
the present Judgment, since there is nothing against the applicants
and as far as they are concerned, the First Information Report is
totally vexatious and is abuse of process of the Court.
(Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.) (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)
wadode
Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 01/10/2025 15:00:47
