Dasraj S/O. Premchand Paunikar vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1225 Bom

Bombay High Court

Dasraj S/O. Premchand Paunikar vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 4 February, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:1892-DB

                                            1            APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                        CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 370 OF 2017

                       Dasraj S/o Premchand Paunikar,
                       Aged 50 Years Occ. Business,
                       R/o Plot No. 39 Mahajanwadi,
                       Wanadongri Near Shiv Parvati Park,
                       Butle Layout, Hingna, Dist. Nagpur. APPLICANT

                        Versus
                  1. State of Maharashtra,
                     Through Police Station Officer,
                     Hingna Police Station, Nagpur.

                  2. Raju S/o Harichand Deogade,
                     Aged 63 years, Occ. Agriculture,
                     Resident of Navin Vasthi Waghdara
                     Hingna Nagpur.                    NON-APPLICANTS

                                            WITH

                        CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 446 OF 2017

                  1. Madan S/o Premchand Paunikar,
                     Aged 53 years, Occ. Labourer,
                     R/o Pardi, Bhandewadi Opposite
                     Railway Station, Nagpur.

                  2. Smt. Sarla W/o Santosh Menar,
                     Aged 48 years Occ. Household,

                  3. Smt. Rekha W/o Laxman Vimalkar,
                     Aged 48 years, Occ. Housewife.

                  4. Smt. Meerabai Wd/o Harilal Kolte,
                     Aged 58 years, Occ. Housewife.          APPLICANTS
                               2          APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt




       Versus
 1. State of Maharashtra,
    Through Police Station Officer,
    Hingna Police Station, Nagpur.

 2. Raju S/o Harichand Deogade,
    Aged 63 years, Occ. Agriculture,
    Resident of Navin Vasthi Waghdara
    Hingna Nagpur.                    NON-APPLICANTS

-----------------------------------------------
Mr. K.N. Shukul, Advocate a/w Mr. R.K. Joshi & Mr. S.S. Bisht,
Advocates for the Applicants.
Mrs. M.A. Barabde, APP for the Non-applicant No. 1/State.
Mr. P.P. Kotwal, Advocate for the Non-applicant No.2.
-----------------------------------------------


        CORAM                 :   URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.

        RESERVED ON           :   27th JANUARY, 2026.

         PRONOUNCED ON :          04th FEBRUARY, 2026.

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. Heard.

2. ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learned

Counsel for the respective parties.

3. Both these Applications are preferred by the

Applicants for quashing of the First Information Report ("FIR"

3 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

for short) in connection with Crime No.10/2017 registered with

Police Station Hingna, Nagpur City for the offence punishable

under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120(B) read with Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and consequent

proceeding arising out of the same bearing R.C.C. No.22/2018

and R.C.C. No.281/2020 (supplementary charge-sheet).

4. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal

of the present Applications are as under:-

4(i). The property in dispute bearing Khasra No.63

admeasuring 10.15 HR situated at Mouza Sondapar, Tahsil

Hingna, District Nagpur which was originally owned by Bapu

Deogade. Said Bapu Deogade died on 07.08.1970 leaving

behind three sons and two daughters. After the death of Bapu

Deogade all the sons and daughters inherited the land bearing

Khasara No.63. Khasra No.63 was divided into three parts and

were renumbered as 63/1, 63/2 and 63/3. The oral partition

took place between all the legal heirs of Bapu Deogade. As per

the partition, Khasra No.63/1 admeasuring 3.70 HR was

received by Harichand Bapu Deogade and Muktabai w/o

Premchand Paunikar who is the daughter of Bapu Deogade.

4 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

Thus, as per the Applicants Harichand Deogade and Mukta

Paunikar became the joint owners of Khasra No.63/1 having

equal share to the extent of 1.85 Hectare each. The said

Harichand Deogade also died on 09.09.1995. On his death, 50%

of the undivided share in Khasra No.63/1 was inherited by his

legal heirs including Non-applicant No.2/Raju Harichand

Deogade. Another share holder Muktabai Paunikar died on

27.10.1997. Her legal heirs namely Dasraj S/o Premchand

Paunikar, Madan S/o Premchand Paunikar, Smt. Sarla W/o

Santosh Menar, Smt. Rekha W/o Laxman Vimalkar and

Smt. Meerabai Wd/o Harilal Kolte (present Applicants) became

the owners of remaining 50% of the share of Khasra No.63/1

and came into possession of the said land. Their names were

also mutated in the revenue records. On 09.09.2008, the

Applicants and other legal heirs sold their undivided 50% share

in Khasra No.63/1 admeasuring 1.85 Hectare to one M/s Neerja

Realtors Private Limited and possession was handed over to the

said Firm. Legal heirs of Harichand Deogade including the

Non-applicant No.2 filed Civil Suit No.1059/2008 against the

present Applicants and purchaser M/s Neerja Realtors Private

Limited and against one Smt. Kamlabai Kalekar for partition,

5 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

separate possession and cancellation of the sale deed dated

09.09.2008.

4(ii). As per the Complainant/Non-applicant No.2, the

share was never given to Muktabai and the 50% share sold by

the Applicants without their consent. In a suit, the

Non-applicant No.2 who is the plaintiff pleaded the right of

Muktabai and after her death the rights of the legal heirs. It was

pleaded that, he alongwith the other legal heirs of Harichand

Deogade and the defendants in the suit who are the legal heirs

of Muktabai are the joint owners of Khasra No.63/1. By way of

amendment, the Non-applicant No.2 tried to bring another story

stating that the defendants in the suit i.e. the present Applicants

are not having shares in the property and Muktabai was never

allotted any share in the partition deed and denied the right of

the present Applicants. The said amendment application was

rejected by the Trial Court observing that, the proposed

amendment would change the entire nature of the suit. Against

the said rejection, the Non-applicant No.2 preferred Writ

Petition No.5785/2012 before this Court. On 15.01.2013, this

Court has dismissed the said Writ Petition. Subsequent to the 6 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

dismissal of Writ Petition, Smt. Kamlabai Kalekar who is also

one of the legal heir of Harichand Deogade filed another

identical amendment application for amendment of written

statement claiming the Applicants and the other legal heirs who

are the legal heirs of Muktabai having no share in the property.

The said application was also rejected by the Trial Court on

07.04.2014. The Writ Petition No.3936/2014 was filed to

challenge the order of the Trial Court, which also came to be

dismissed.

4(iii). Subsequent to the above litigations, the

Non-applicant No.2 who is the original Complainant filed an

application before the Naib Tahsildar, Hingna raising objection

as regards to conversion of the land from Class II to Class I. On

18.01.2010, the Naib Tahsildar Hingna submitted its report to

Sub Divisional Officer. The Non-applicant No.2 alongwith other

legal heirs filed Revenue Appeal No.162/2011 before the Sub

Divisional Officer challenging the order of Tahsildar and denied

the right of the present Applicants. The said Appeal was

dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer on 23.10.2015 observing

that the similar issue is raised in the Civil Suit before the Civil 7 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

Judge Senior Division, Nagpur. The order of Sub Divisional

Officer was challenged before the Additional Collector, Nagpur

vide Appeal No.74/RTS-64/2015-16 which is pending. The

Non-applicant No.2 alongwith other plaintiffs preferred an

application before Naib Tahsildar on 05.12.2015 stating that the

applicant never applied for conversion of land from Class II to

Class I and their names were wrongly mutated in the revenue

records. It was further alleged that, the Naib Tahsildar, Hingna

without issuing notices to all the legal heirs called report from

Talathi and observed that there is oral partition and no share

was given to said Muktabai and accordingly directed Talathi of

Mouza Sondapar to remove the names of the present Applicants

and other legal heirs of Muktabai. The Applicants and other

legal heirs alongwith M/s Neerja Realtors Private Limited

challenged the order of Naib Tahsildar by filing Writ Petition

No.3786/2016. By order dated 07.07.2016, this Court stayed

the operation and execution of order passed by the Naib

Tahsildar dated 31.05.2016. Thereafter the present FIR came to

be lodged on the basis of the report of Non-applicant No.2

alleging that with the help of forged documents though he has

not applied for conversion of land, the application was filed 8 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

alongwith his signature and the land was sold by the present

Applicants to M/s Neerja Realtors Private Limited though they

are not having any share in the property. On the basis of the

said report, crime came to be registered and after investigation

the charge-sheet is filed against the present Applicants. Initially

the charge-sheet No.8/2018 was filed on 31.01.2018 and

supplementary charge-sheet also came to be filed. The previous

charge-sheet was numbered as R.C.C No.22/2008, whereas the

supplementary charge-sheet was numbered as 281/2020.

Subsequently both the charge-sheets are merged for trial.

5. Heard Mr. Shukul, learned Counsel for the

Applicants who submitted that from the entire facts and

circumstances it reveals that the nature of the dispute is civil in

nature. The issue regarding the rights of the parties is already

subjudiced before the Civil Court. As far as the entire charge-

sheet is concerned, there is no single averment that it was the

present Applicants who have forged the signature of the Non-

applicant No.2 and filed an application for conversion of the

land from Class II to Class I. 9 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

5(i). He submitted that, the entire documents on record

sufficiently shows that the mother of the present Applicants was

the legal heir of original owner Bapu Deogade. After the death

of Bapu Deogade the land was divided and Khasra No. 63/1

admeasuring 3.70 Hectare was received by the father of the

Non-applicant No.2 Harichand Deogade and mother of the

present Applicants Muktabai and they became the joint owners.

This fact is initially admitted by the Non-applicant No.2 when

he preferred a suit. The pleadings in the said suit specifically

states that "the plaintiffs and the defendants No. 1 to 5 are

absolute and joint owner of the suit situated at Mouza Sondpar,

Tahsil Hingna, District Nagpur bearing Khasra No.63/1". This

itself states that, the Non-applicant No.2 has accepted the joint

ownership of the present Applicants but subsequently with

ulterior motive the amendment application came to be filed

denying the right of the present Applicants, which was rejected

by the Trial Court and maintained by this Court by dismissing

the Writ Petition.

5(ii). The another attempt was made to file the similar

type of application through another legal heir but the same was 10 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

also rejected and Writ Petition against the said rejection is also

dismissed. The order passed in both the Writ Petitions is not

challenged further, thus same attained finality. Thereafter the

attempt was made by filing an application before Naib Tahsildar.

The Naib Tahsildar on 18.01.2010 submitted his report to the

Sub Divisional Officer. The Appeal before the Sub Divisional

Officer was also dismissed on 23.10.2015. Thus, till 2015 there

was no allegation that the present Applicants have forged the

signature of the Non-applicant No.2 by filing application for

conversion of the land. The order of Sub Divisional Officer was

challenged before the Additional Collector, Nagpur which is still

pending. Without waiting for the decision of the Additional

Collector, Nagpur the Non-applicant No.2 alongwith others

again preferred an application before the Naib Tahsildar. The

Naib Tahsildar only by recording the statements of the Non-

applicant No.2 and other legal heirs of Harichand Deogade

allowed the application and removed the names of the present

Applicants from the revenue records. The said order is already

stayed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3786/2016 vide order

dated 07.07.2016 and Writ Petition is still pending. Thereafter 11 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

as no relief was in favour of the Non-applicant No.2 with false

allegations on 10.01.2017 the present FIR came to be lodged.

5(iii). Even the recitals of the FIR or the statements of the

witnesses nowhere discloses that the present Applicants have

forged the signature of the Non-applicant No.2 at the time of

filing an application before the Tahsildar for conversion of the

land from Class I to Class II. Thus, even if the allegations are

taken into consideration at its face value, no criminal offence is

made out as there is no single sentence in the FIR or subsequent

statements that the present Applicants have hatched the

conspiracy and thereafter prepared forged documents and with

the help of forged documents deceived the Non-applicant No.2.

The entire material which is collected during the investigation

which only shows that the dispute as to the right of the present

Applicants in the agricultural land bearing Khasra No.63/1 is in

question, and therefore, no offence is made out as alleged

against the present Applicants.

5(iv). In support of his contention he placed reliance on

various decisions: Usha Chakraborty & Anr. Vs. State of West

Bengal & Anr., (2023) 15 SCC 135, Anukul Singh Vs. State of 12 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 4250/2025 decided

on 24.09.2025, Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand &

Ors., (2013) 11 SCC 673, M/s. Shikhar Chemicals Vs. The State

of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (CRL.) No.

11445/2025 decided on 04.08.2025, Shri Gulam Mustafa Vs.

The State of Karnataka & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 1452/2023

decided on 10.05.2023, G.V. Adhimoolam & Ors., Vs. Inspector

of Police and Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1165, Urmila Devi &

Ors., Vs. Balram & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 3300/2025

decided on 31.07.2025.

6. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said

contention and submitted that during investigation it revealed

that though the present Applicants who are the legal heirs of

Muktabai have no rights in Khasra No.63/1, they got mutated

their names in the revenue records and sold out the said

property without consent of the Non-applicant No.2. The

enquiry was already conducted against Talathi and the action

was taken against him. Thus, the investigation papers discloses

the involvement of the present Applicants in the forgery. In view

of that, the Application deserves to be rejected.

13 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

7. Mr. Kotwal, learned Counsel for the original

Complainant/Non-applicant No.2, submitted his written

submissions. The sum and substance of his written submissions

are that no land at all came to the share of Muktabai as alleged,

and therefore, her legal heirs i.e. the present Applicants cannot

be the owners of the land in question. Moreover, the land

bearing Khasra No. 63/1 was acquired by the City and Industrial

Development Corporation of Maharashtra (for short "CIDCO")

for development of new city project and hence the said land was

not open for sale and no sale deed could have been executed

with respect to the said land. He further submitted that, there

was no conversion of land, no such application was filed by the

Non-applicant No.2 and the application which bears the

signature of the Non-applicant No.2 is a forged signature which

was filed for conversion of the land. Thus, prima facie material

sufficiently shows the involvement of the present Applicants in

the alleged offence and hence the Application deserves to be

rejected.

7(i). In support of his contention he placed reliance on

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Goloconda Linga Swamy & Anr., 14 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

2004 Supreme (SC) 744, State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath

Padhi, 2004 Supreme (SC) 1483, Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947 &

Sameer Sandhir Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Criminal

Appeal Nos. 4718-4719/2024, decided on 23.05.2025.

8. Before entering into the merits of the entire issue

involved, it is necessary to consider the law regarding quashing

of the FIR in the case of Paramjeet Batra (supra), wherein the

Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.12 has observed as under:-

"12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court."

9. In another judgment in the case of Vesa Holdings

(P) Ltd., Vs. State of Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293 , wherein the

Hon'ble Apex Court in para 13 observed as under:

15 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

"13. It is true that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may be available to the complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offence of cheating or not. In the present case there is nothing to show that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC. In our view the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all. The criminal proceedings should not be encouraged when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. The superior courts while exercising this power should also strive to serve the ends of justice. In our opinion in view of these facts allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of the court and the High Court committed an error in refusing to exercise the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings."

10. In the decision of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs.

Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335 , the Hon'ble Apex

Court has considered the statutory provisions as also the earlier

decisions and laid down the parameters, which reads as under:

"(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) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the 16 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(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. By referring all these judgments in the case of Usha

Chakraborty (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the

exercise of powers of quashing and reiterated the basic

requirement and ingredient to bring home the accusations in

different provisions of IPC.

12. Similar view is taken in Anukul Singh (supra), on

the basis of various judgments. Whereas, the decision in the 17 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

case of State of Orissa (supra), relied upon by the learned

Counsel for the Non-applicant No.2 considers what is to be

considered at the stage of framing of charge and helpful

material as produced by the prosecution is to be considered and

not one produced by the accused. There is no dispute as far as

the legal position is concerned while considering the discharge

application. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh (supra),

wherein also the powers regarding quashing of the FIR are

considered and it is held that the inherent jurisdiction under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. though wide has to be exercised sparingly,

carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is

justified by the tests specifically laid down in Section itself.

13. In the light of the well settled law as to the quashing

of the FIR, the facts and circumstances of the present case are to

be looked into. Undisputedly, Shri Bapu Deogade was the

absolute owner of Khasra No. 63 admeasuring 10.15 Hectare

situated at Mouza Sondapar, Tahsil Hingna, District Nagpur. He

had three sons and two daughters. The mother of the present

Applicants Muktabai admittedly is the daughter of said Bapu

Deogade. Bapu Deogade died on 07.08.1970. After death of 18 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

Bapu Deogade all the sons and daughters inherited the land

bearing Khasra No.63. Khasra No.63 was divided into three

parts as 63/1, 63/2 and 63/3. As per the Applicants, oral

partition took place between all the legal heirs of Bapu Deogade

and as per the said partition Khasra No.63/1 was inherited by

Harichand Deogade and Muktabai Paunikar who are the son

and daughter of Bapu Deogade. Harichand Deogade is the

father of the Non-applicant No.2, whereas Muktabai is the

mother of the present Applicants. Thus, as per the Applicants,

Harichand Deogade and Muktabai Paunikar became the joint

owners of Khasra No.63/1. As per the oral partition Harichand

Deogade and Muktabai became the owners of Khasra No.63/1.

14. As per the allegations, the Applicants or their

mother have not inherited any rights in the said property but

they mutated their names fraudulently. This allegation is to be

looked into in the light of the pleading by the Non-applicant

No.2 in a suit filed by him.

15. Before entering into the pleadings in a suit filed by

the Non-applicant No.2, it is necessary to mention that the 19 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

dispute arose between the present Applicants and Non-applicant

No.2 as the present Applicants have sold out their 50% share in

Khasra No.63/1 to M/s Neerja Realtors on 09.09.2008. After

this transaction one Tulsabai Deogade, Non-applicant No.2 and

other legal heirs of Harichand Deogade filed a suit bearing

Special Civil Suit No. 1059/2008. The pleading in the said suit

shows that it is contended in the suit by the present Non-

applicant No.2 and other legal heirs that the plaintiffs therein

and the defendants No.1 to 5 are absolute and joint owner of

the suit property at Mouza Sondpar, Tahsil Hingna, District

Nagpur, bearing Khasra No.63/1. It is further pleaded that, the

plaintiffs are the legal heirs of deceased Harichand Deogade,

whereas the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are the legal heirs of

Muktabai. It is further admitted in the said suit that, as the

original Khasra No.63 is owned by Bapu Deogade who has three

sons and two daughters namely Muktabai and Chotibai. After

the death of said Bapu Deogade Khasra No.63 was divided into

63/1, 63/2 and 63/3. It is further pleaded that, there was oral

partition amongst the legal heirs of Bapu Deogade and thereby

land bearing Khasra No.63/1 admeasuring 3.10 Hectare jointly 20 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

came to the share of Harichand Deogade and Smt. Muktabai

Paunikar i.e. the mother of the present Applicants.

16. Thus, the pleading in the said suit admits that the

present Applicants are the legal heirs of Muktabai and having

their rights in the suit property. It is further admitted that, in

view of oral partition the father of the Non-applicant No.2

Harichand Deogade and mother of the present Applicants

having their share to the extent of 50-50 in Khasra No.63/1.

The said suit came to be filed by the Non-applicant No.2 and

other legal heirs of Harichand Deogade on 23.09.2008. After

two years of filing of the suit, on 21.09.2011 the amendment

application was filed by the Non-applicant No.2 and other legal

heirs denying the rights of the present Applicants and their

mother Muktabai and amendment was sought to amend the

pleadings. As the proposed amendment was changing the entire

nature of the suit, therefore 5th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division,

Nagpur by order dated 06.07.2012 rejected the said application.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same the

Non-applicant No.2 though his mother filed Writ Petition

No.5785/2012 before this Court. The said Writ Petition by order 21 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

dated 15.01.2013 came to be dismissed and the order of the

Trial Court rejecting the amendment application was

maintained. Subsequent to the dismissal of the Writ Petition

another legal heir of Harichand Deogade namely Kamlabai

Madhukar Kalekar who is the sister of the Non-applicant No.2

preferred an application vide Exh.67 for amendment who was

defendant No.8 in the said suit with the similar contentions in

Spl. Civil Suit No.1059/2008. The said application also came to

be rejected by observing that it would change the entire nature

of the suit. Against the said rejection she filed Writ Petition

No.3936/2014 which also came to be dismissed on 27.04.2016.

17. Thus, the contention of the Non-applicant No.2 that,

the present Applicants having no share contrary to their earlier

pleading was not accepted by Civil Judge Senior Division,

Nagpur as well as this Court while considering the Writ Petition.

As the Non-applicant No.2 and other legal heirs were not

successful in bringing the pleading denying the rights of the

present Applicants, the Non-applicant No.2 filed an application

before Naib Tahsildar, Hingna raising objection as regards to the

conversion of land from Class II to Class I. On 18.01.2010, the 22 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

Naib Tahsildar, Hingna submitted his report to the Sub

Divisional Officer and the Sub Divisional Officer on the basis of

the report dismissed the revenue appeal filed by the Non-

applicant No.2 bearing Appeal No.162/2011 observing that the

issue is pending before the Civil Court. The Non-applicant No.2

challenged the order of Sub Divisional Officer before the

Additional Collector, Nagpur vide Appeal No.74/RTS-64/2015-

16 which is still pending. When the earlier appeal on the same

issue is pending before the Additional Collector, the Non-

applicant No.2 again filed an application before the Naib

Tahsildar on 05.12.2015 stating that he never applied for

conversion of land to Class II to Class I and the names of the

present Applicants are mutated in the revenue records by

joining hands with Talathi. The Naib Tahsildar without issuing

the notice to the present Applicants only by recording the

statements of the Non-applicant No.2 and other legal heirs of

Hirachand Deogade directed Talathi of Mouza Sondapar, Tahsil

Hingna to remove the names of the present Applicants and the

other legal heirs. Therefore, the Applicants and the other legal

heirs alongwith M/s Neerja Realtors challenged the order of

Naib Tahsildar by filing Writ Petition No.3786/2016 before this 23 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

Court. This Court after considering the entire facts and

circumstances stayed the effect, operation and execution of the

impugned order passed by the Naib Tahsildar. The said Writ

Petition is still pending. It is further apparent that, subsequent

to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3786/2016,

approximately after six months the present FIR bearing Crime

No.10/2017 came to be filed against the present Applicants.

18. On perusal of the recitals of the FIR it is alleged

that, the present Applicants have no legal right in Khasra

No.63/1 but they have mutated their names to the extent of

1.85 Hectare and without obtaining the consent, they have sold

their share to M/s Neerja Realtors for a consideration of Rs.87

Lakhs and they are restrained from entering into the land. Thus,

the Applicants have sold out the land illegally. From the recitals

of the entire FIR nowhere it is alleged that, it was the present

Applicants who have forged the revenue records or with the

help of Talathi they have forged the revenue records. The

allegation is that the purchaser made an attempt to mutate their

names but their names were not mutated. During investigation

various statements were recorded but the entire statements of 24 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

the witnesses are completely silent as to the role of the present

Applicants in the forgery. Thus, it is apparent that, the order of

Sub Divisional Officer that the issue is pending before the Civil

Court, the Naib Tahsildar has passed an order and removed the

names of the present Applicants. Thus, the allegations are also

required to be looked into in the light of the pleadings in the

Special Civil Suit filed by the Non-applicant No.2 and other

legal heirs i.e. Spl. Civil Suit No. 1059/2008, wherein the right

of the present Applicants is initially admitted and pleaded by

the present Non-applicant No.2.

19. Mr. Kotwal, learned Counsel for the Non-applicant

No.2, vehemently submitted that the Applicants have no right to

sell out the said property, as the CIDCO has already issued the

letter regarding acquisition of the said land but on perusal of

the letter it reveals that the said letter was addressed to Raju

Harichand Deogade dated 23.12.2008 i.e. subsequent to the

execution of the sale deed by the present Applicants in favour of

M/s Neerja Realtors. As the sale deed was executed by the

present Applicants in favour of M/s Neerja Realtors on

09.09.2008, whereas the letter issued by CIDCO regarding the 25 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

acquisition is dated 23.12.2008. Therefore, the contention of

the learned Counsel for the Non-applicant No.2 that, the sale

deed itself is illegal in view of the letter issued by CIDCO is not

sustainable.

20. The present Applicants are charged for the offence

punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120(B) read with

Section 34 of IPC. As per the allegations of the Non-applicant

No.2, the Applicants by hatching conspiracy got mutated their

names in the revenue records. However, the entire charge-sheet

is silent as to the ingredients of the offence that the present

Applicants entered into the agreement to do the illegal act with

the Government Officials and thereby with the help of

Government Officials got mutated their names. None of the

statements discloses the said allegations, whether a complaint

or FIR discloses a criminal offence which depends upon the

nature of the facts alleged therein. Whether the essential

ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be

judged by this Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions

may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see

whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a 26 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is

available and is, in fact, adopted, the Criminal proceeding is to

be quashed.

21. In case of Usha Chakraborty (supra), wherein the

Hon'ble Apex Court has considered all these aspects and held

that the materials on record pertaining to the said pleadings

instituted in the Civil Suit, produced in this proceeding would

reveal that the respondent was in fact ousted from the

membership of the trust. In the counter affidavit filed in this

proceeding, the respondent has virtually admitted the pendency

of the suit filed against his removal from the post of Secretary

and the trusteeship and its pendency. The factum of passing of

adverse orders in the interlocutory applications in the said Civil

Suit as also the prima facie finding and conclusion arrived at by

the Civil Court that the respondent stands removed from the

post of Secretary and also from the trusteeship are also not

disputed therein. Then, the question is why would the

respondent conceal those relevant aspects. The indisputable and

undisputed facts would reveal the existence of the civil dispute 27 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

on removal of the respondent from the post of Secretary of the

school as also from the trusteeship.

22. It is further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, by

non-disclosure the respondent has, in troth, concealed the

existence of a pending civil suit between him and the appellants

herein before a competent civil court which obviously is the

causative incident for the respondent's allegation of

perpetration of the aforesaid offences against the appellants.

23. It is further observed that, the factual position thus

would reveal that the genesis as also the purpose of criminal

proceedings are nothing but the aforesaid incident and further

that the dispute involved is essentially of civil nature. The

appellants and the respondents have given a cloak of criminal

offence in the issue. In such circumstance when the respondent

had already resorted to the available civil remedy and it is

pending, going by the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), the

High Court would have quashed the criminal proceedings to

prevent the abuse of the process of the Court but for the

concealment.

28 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

24. Here in the present case also, the pleadings

instituted in the civil suit wherein the Non-applicant No.2 and

other legal heirs have accepted the right of the present

Applicants in Khasra No.63/1. The attempt was made by them

to amend the said pleading, is not accepted by the Trial Court in

Civil Suit as well as by the High Court in Writ Petition filed by

the Non-applicant No.2. Thus, all facts are not disclosed by the

Non-applicant No.2 in the FIR. There was non-disclosure by the

Non-applicant No.2 of filing of the civil suit against the present

Applicants and various orders passed by the Trial Court as well

as this Court.

25. At the same time, the allegations to be looked into

in the light of the ingredients of the offence under Section 467

of IPC. The essential ingredients to constitute the offence

punishable under this Section are:

(i) commission of forgery;

(ii) that such commission of forgery must be in relation to a document purporting to be

(a) a valuable property; or

(b) a will; or

(c) an authority to adopt a son; or 29 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

(d) which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security; or

(e) the receive the principle, interest or dividends thereon; or

(f) to receive or deliver any money, movable property or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or

(g) an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security.

26. The requirement to constitute the offence

punishable under Section 468 of IPC are:

(i) commission of forgery,

(ii) that he did so intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating.

27. The factual position in the present case would reveal

that the dispute arose between the present Applicants and the

Non-applicant No.2 as to the share in the property initially the

right of the present Applicants is admitted by the Non-applicant

No.2 and other legal heirs in the civil suit. Thereafter an 30 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

attempt was made to change the said pleading by way of

amendment, however the said attempt was invain, and

thereafter the Non-applicant No.2 have given a cloak to the said

dispute of a criminal offence. The Non-applicant No.2 has

already filed a civil suit admitting the right of the present

Applicants, and therefore, the allegations in the FIR falls short

to constitute the offence punishable under Sections 467 and 468

of IPC.

28. As far as the offence punishable under Section 420

of IPC is concerned, to constitute the said offence there must be

deception i.e., the accused must have deceived someone; that by

such deception the accused must induce a person:

(i) to deliver any property; or

(ii) to make, alter, destroy a whole or part of the valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable property; or

(iii) that the accused must have done so dishonestly.

The offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC, to constitute criminal conspiracy, there must be agreement between two or more persons. The agreement should be to do or cause to be done some 31 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

illegal act, or some act which is not illegal, by illegal means, provided that where the agreement is other than one to commit an offence, the prosecution must further prove; or

(iv) that some act besides the agreement was done by one or more of the parties in pursuance of it.

29. Now, the question is whether the allegations in the

aforesaid FIR are sufficient to constitute the alleged offences.

Admittedly, the allegations levelled are contrary to the earlier

pleadings of the Non-applicant No.2 in the civil suit. Moreover,

it is apparent that, the statement of Non-applicant No.2 is

clearly silent as to the forgery by the present Applicants on the

facts and considering the dispute about the rights of the present

Applicants in the suit property which is purely civil nature. The

essential ingredients of a criminal offence is that whether the

person has to be judged from the facts and circumstances of the

given case.

30. Here in the present case, a complaint disclosing civil

transaction and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that

there was intention since inception, and therefore, the offence

under Section 420 of IPC is not made out in the present case.

32 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

31. The aspect of subsequent lodging of the FIR is also

required to be looked into. The Non-applicant No.2 came to

know about the sale of the property to the extent of share of the

present Applicants and in the year 2008 itself they have filed

the civil suit bearing Spl. Civil Suit No.1059/2008 on

23.09.2008. The FIR came to be lodged after 10 years of filing

of the civil suit. In the meanwhile, the Non-applicant No.2 has

filed various applications before the revenue authorities as well

as contrary stand taken before the Civil Judge Senior Division,

Nagpur in the application for amendment, which was rejected.

Thereafter Writ Petitions were also dismissed. Thereafter the

application was filed before the Naib Tahsildar challenging the

mutation by filing a revenue Appeal No.162/2011, wherein also

the Non-applicant No.2 was not successful in getting the reliefs.

32. The conduct of the Non-applicant No.2 can be seen

from the circumstances that despite the order of Sub Divisional

Officer dismissing the appeal has challenged before the

Additional Collector, Nagpur vide Appeal No.74/RTS-64/2015-

16 which is pending, another application with the similar

contention was filed before the Naib Tahsildar and the Naib 33 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

Tahsildar without issuing the notices to the present Applicants

and despite the order of Sub Divisional Officer that issue is

pending before the Civil Court removed the names of the

present Applicants which were mutated to the extent of their

shares in Khasra No.63/1. The effect and implementation of the

order of Naib Tahsildar was stayed by this Court in Writ Petition

No.3786/2016 and thereafter after six months when the Non-

applicant No.2 realized that he is not successful in getting the

relief in his favour, this FIR came to be lodged. Thus, the gross

delay of approximately 10 years after getting the knowledge of

sale of the share of the present Applicants in Khasra No.63/1,

the FIR came to be filed, which sufficiently shows that there was

no bonafide cause behind lodging the FIR. On the contrary, as a

matter of fact, as the Non-applicant No.2 was not successful in

earlier litigations, he lodged the report by giving a colour of

criminal offence.

33. For invocation of the offence punishable under

Section 420 of IPC, it is imperative that the accused should have

induced the complainant to part with valuable security and that 34 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

such inducement should at the inception, which is absent in the

present case.

34. Thus, on a careful consideration of the facts and

circumstances of the present case and by applying parameters

laid down in various decisions and by applying the above

principles to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that, the

dispute between the present Applicants and Non-applicant No.2

is purely civil in nature and the essential ingredients of cheating

or forgery are not prima facie made out. There is non-disclosure

by the Non-applicant No.2 regarding pending of civil suit and

various orders passed against him was concealed, which

obviously in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Usha Chakraborty (supra), is the causative incident.

35. As noticed above a bare perusal of the allegations

and the ingredients would reveal that the allegations are vague

and not sufficient to constitute the essential ingredients to

constitute the alleged offence. Thus, it is an attempt by the

Non-applicant No.2 to implicate the present Applicants in a

criminal proceeding though the dispute involved is a civil

nature.

35 APL.370-2017 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

36. In such circumstances, considering all above facts

and circumstances I am of the considered opinion that this is a

fit case, wherein the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to be

exercised, and therefore, I proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

i. Criminal Application (APL) Nos. 370/2017 and 446/2017 are allowed.

ii. The First Information Report in connection with Crime No. 10/2017 registered with Police Station Hingna, Nagpur City for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing R.C.C. No.22/2018 and R.C.C. No.281/2020, are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of the present Applicants.

37. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of

accordingly.

(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)

S.D.Bhimte

Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 05/02/2026 15:34:50