[Cites 21, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ramesh Ukharda Masaye vs State Of Mah. Thr. Ps Hinganghat ... on 18 February, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:3064-DB
1 59.APL.2002-2025 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 2002 OF 2025
Gajanan Ukhanda Mhasaye,
Age 57 Years, Occ. Service,
R/o Plot No.18, New Yashwant
Nagar, Hinganghat, District Wardha. APPLICANT
Versus
State of Maharashtra,
Thr. Police Station Hinganghat,
District Wardha. NON-APPLICANT
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 2001 OF 2025
Ramesh Ukharda Masaye,
Age 51 Years, Occ. Service,
R/o Chhatrapati Chowk, Nagpur. APPLICANT
Versus
State of Maharashtra,
Thr. Police Station Hinganghat,
District Wardha. NON-APPLICANT
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. S.S. Joshi, Advocate for the Applicant in APL No.2002/25.
Mr. V.M. Vishwarupe, Advocate for the Applicant in APL
No.2001/25.
Mr. A.M. Kadukar, APP for the Non-applicant/State.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 18th FEBRUARY, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
2 59.APL.2002-2025 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learned
Counsel for the respective parties.
3. Both these Applications are filed by the accused
Nos. 1 and 2 for quashing the order passed by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Hinganghat, District Wardha
below Exh. 72 i.e. the discharge application filed under Section
239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.")
rejecting the said application vide order dated 21.10.2022 and
the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Hinganghat in Criminal Revision Application
No.27/2022 dated 28.03.2023, by which the order passed by
the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Hinganghat,
District Wardha, is maintained and discharge application is
rejected.
4. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal
of the present Applications are as under:
4(i). On 11.06.2016, the Informant Subhash Katkhede
lodged written report with Police Station Hinganghat alleging
3 59.APL.2002-2025 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
that the present Applicants in furtherance of their common
intention deceived him and his wife to the tune of 18,13,000/-.
It is alleged that, the accused No.2/Ramesh had entered into an
agreement to sell agricultural land bearing Survey No.191,
admeasuring 3.28 HR situated at Mouza Murpad, Tah.
Hinganghat, District Wardha with Informant and his wife on
15.04.2013 for a consideration of amount of Rs.17,41,844/-.
The said land was in the name of one of the accused Manoj
Gulabrao Kuthe on revenue record. Said Manoj Gulabrao Kuthe
had entered into an agreement to sell the said land with
accused No.2/Ramesh and accused No.1/Gajanan had signed
the said agreement in the place of accused No.2/Ramesh.
Informant had paid Rs.4,00,000/- to accused No.1/Gajanan in
presence of the accused No.4 Gajanan Vitale. It is alleged that
accused No. 4/Gajanan Vitale had instigated the Informant to
purchase the said land and on the say of accused No.1
Informant has paid huge amount to accused No.3/Manoj Kuthe
and got executed the sale deed in his favour and in favour of his
wife vide documents Nos.3815 and 3816 dated 11.11.2013.
4(ii). It is further alleged that, when Informant applied for
mutation, at that time he came to know that the said land was
4 59.APL.2002-2025 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
Bhudan Land and by order of Sub-Divisional Officer
Hinganghat, the said land has been forfeited to Government. It
is further alleged that, the Informant requested the present
Applicants and other co-accused to return the amount paid by
him but they avoided. It is further alleged that, the present
Applicants as well as other co-accused have deceived Informant
to the tune of Rs.18,13,000/-. On the basis of the said report,
Hinganghat Police registered FIR bearing Crime No.815/2016
for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 read
with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code ( for short "IPC").
5. After registration of the crime, the wheels of
investigation started rotating. During investigation the
Investigating Officer has recorded the relevant statements of
witnesses and also collected various documents and after
completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted
against the accused.
6. Being aggrieved with the fact of filing of the
charge-sheet against the present Applicants they have preferred
an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., for discharging
them on the ground that there was no intention apparent from
5 59.APL.2002-2025 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
the entire charge-sheet since inception, and therefore, the
offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is not made out.
The further ground raised is that the entire revenue record
nowhere shows that the land was Bhudan Land, and therefore,
there was no source of information to the present Applicants
that the land is Bhudan Land. However, the learned Trial Court
has not considered the same and the Investigating Officer has
also not considered the same and filed the charge-sheet without
having any evidence against them.
7. The learned Magistrate has considered the entire
investigation papers and come to the conclusion that there is
sufficient material to show that the present Applicants have
entered into an agreement with the Informant by joining hands
with each other, and therefore, at this stage there is sufficient
evidence to frame the charge and rejected the Application.
8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said
judgment and the said order of the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, the Applicants have preferred the Revision alongwith the
other co-accused. The learned Sessions Judge has considered
the entire aspect and observed that, on perusal of record, it
6 59.APL.2002-2025 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
appears that the Applicants have challenged the order whereby
the learned Trial Court rejected their application for discharge.
It is contention of the Applicants that they have no concern with
the alleged forgery and cheating. On perusal of impugned order,
it appears that, the learned Trial Court held that there is
sufficient evidence against applicants for framing charge for
offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. All
the offences are serious in nature and prescribed severe
punishment and thereby rejected the Application and
maintained the order of Judicial Magistrate First Class.
9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same the
present Applications are filed by the present Applicants i.e. the
accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the charge-sheet.
10. Before entering into merits of the case, it is
necessary to see what are the considerations for considering the
application for discharge.
11. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of
considering an application for discharge, the Court must
proceed on the assumption that the material which has been
7 59.APL.2002-2025 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the
material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from
the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of
the ingredients necessary of the offence alleged.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Gujarat Vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, MANU/SC/1113 2023,
adverting to the earlier propositions of law in its earlier
decisions in the cases of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. N.Suresh Rajan
& Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 709, The State of Maharashtra Vs. Som
Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659 and The State of MP Vs. Mohan
Lal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338, has held as under:
"10. It is settled principle of law that at the stage of
considering an application for discharge the court must
proceed on an assumption that the material which has
been brought on record by the prosecution is true and
evaluate said material in order to determine whether the
facts emerging from the material taken on its face value,
disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the
offence alleged. This Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs.
N.Suresh Rajan and ors, (2014) 11 SCC 709 adverting to
the earlier propositions of law laid down on this subject
has held:
"29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival
submissions and the submissions made by Mr. Ranjit
Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of
consideration of the applications for discharge, the
court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution
or act as a post office and may sift evidence in order
to find out whether or not the allegations made are
groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is
8 59.APL.2002-2025 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
trite that at the stage of consideration of an
application for discharge, the court has to proceed
with an assumption that the materials brought on
record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the
said materials and documents with a view to find out
whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their
face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. At this stage,
probative value of the materials has to be gone into
and the court is not expected to go deep into the
matter and hold that the materials would not warrant
a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be
considered is whether there is a ground for
presuming that the offence has been committed and
not whether a ground for convicting the accused has
been made out. To put it differently, if the court
thinks that the accused might have committed the
offence on the basis of the materials on record on its
probative value, it can frame the charge; though for
conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion
that the accused has committed the offence. The law
does not permit a mini trial at this stage."
13. Thus, the defence of the accused is not to be looked
into at this stage when the application is filed for discharge. The
expression "the record of the case" used in Section 227 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure is to be understood as the
documents and materials, if any, produced by the prosecution.
The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not give
any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage
of framing of the charge. The submission of the accused is to be
confined to the material produced by the investigating agency.
The primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is
9 59.APL.2002-2025 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
the test of existence of a prima facie case, and at this stage, the
probative value of materials on record need not be gone into.
At the stage of entertaining the application for discharge under
Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court cannot
analyze or direct the evidence of the prosecution and defence or
the points or possible cross examination of the defence. The
case of the prosecution is to be accepted as it is.
14. In the case of Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar
Samal & Anr., (1973) 3 SCC 4 , the Hon'ble Apex Court
considered the scope of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. After adverting to the various decisions, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has enumerated the following principles:
"(1) That the Judge while considering the question of
framing the charges under section 227 of the Code has the
undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the
limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie
case against the accused has been made out.
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose
grave suspicion against the accused which has not been
properly explained the Court will be, fully justified in
framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would
naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is
difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and
large however if two views are equally possible and the
Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him
while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion
10 59.APL.2002-2025 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
against the accused, he will be fully within his right to
discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under section 227 of
the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a
senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post
office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to
consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect
of the evidence and the documents produced before the
Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so
on. This however does not mean that the Judge should
make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter
and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."
15. With the above principles the material in the present
case collected during the investigation is required to be
considered.
16. Heard Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for the Applicant
in Criminal Application (APL) No.2002/2025 and
Mr. Vishwarupe, learned Counsel for the Applicant in Criminal
Application (APL) No.2001/2025. They have invited my
attention towards the summary of charge-sheet and submitted
that except the allegation that they entered into an agreement
with the Informant with the help of other co-accused, there is
no other allegation either they have forged any document or
they have assisted the other accused in forging the documents
apparent from the charge-sheet. They have also invited my
attention towards the various documents i.e. 7/12 extract as
11 59.APL.2002-2025 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
well as the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in Case
No.01-LEN-39/2015-16 dated 14.03.2016 and the report of
Talathi and submitted that none of these documents shows that
the land was termed as Bhudan Land. On the contrary, the
revenue record shows that the land is neither coming under the
Ceiling Act nor under the caption of Adiwasi Land nor under the
Bhudan Land. Thus, none of the documents are showing that
the said land was a Bhudan Land, and therefore, there is no
reason for the Applicants to know the fact that the land was a
Bhudan Land. They have also invited my attention towards the
report of the Circle Officer dated 01.08.2015 which shows that,
in old or new 7/12 extract nowhere it is mentioned that the
land i.e. Survey No. 96 admeasuring 3.57 HR is a Bhudan Land.
This aspect is also considered by the Civil Court i.e. Civil Judge
Senior Division, Wardha in Civil Suit No.151/2017 dated
02.01.2024, wherein it is specifically observed in para 29, which
read as under:
"oknfeGdrhoj 1985&86 iklqu Hkqnku eaMGkph uksan ulY;kus oknfeGdr
gh osGksosGh gLrkarjhr >kyh vkgs- lnj uksanh ulU;kekxs dkj.k gs eglqy foHkkx vkgs- oknhP;k
[kjsnh[krkl izfroknhus vk{ksi uksanfoysyk ukgh- oknhP;k [kjsnh[krkl lat; o eukst cqVys ;kauh
vk{ksi uksanfoysyk vkgs- eglqy foHkkxke/;s mifoHkkxh; vk;qDrkauh lat; o eukst cqVys ;kaP;k
12 59.APL.2002-2025 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
vk{ksikuqlkjp fu.kZ; fnysyk vkgs- oknhus dcqy dsY;kizek.ks oknfeGdrhph dkxni=s R;kauh Lor%
rikl.kh dsyh"
17. This finding of the Civil Judge Senior Division,
Hinganghat is not challenged and it has now attained finality.
Thus, the entire revenue record as well as the finding of the
Civil Court shows that, there was no document to show that the
land was a Bhudan Land and the said land was transferred since
1985-86 on various occasions. It is specifically observed by the
Civil Court that, it was the fault on the part of the Revenue
Officers of the Revenue Department and the said sale deed was
never objected by the accused i.e. Manoj Gulabrao Kuthe who is
the original owner of the said land.
18. Thus, the entire investigation papers nowhere shows
the fact that the said land is Bhudan Land, was within the
knowledge of the present Applicants and after having the said
knowledge they have entered into the transactions.
19. It is well settled that for attracting the offence
punishable under Section 420 of IPC, the intention since
inception is the necessary ingredient which required to be
13 59.APL.2002-2025 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
established by the prosecution at the prima facie stage also. For
cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making a
false or misleading representation i.e. since inception.
20. The offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC
and to constitute the said offence there must be deception i.e.
the accused must have deceived someone and that by such
deception the accused must induce a person to deliver any
property; or 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
that the accused must have done so dishonestly. The offence
punishable under Section 420 of IPC is made out when there is
an intention since inception.
21. This aspect is considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in catena of decisions. In the case of Usha Chakraborty & Anr.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., (2023) 15 SCC 135 , wherein by
referring the case of Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand &
Ors., 2013(11) SCC 673, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph
No.12 has observed as under:-
14 59.APL.2002-2025 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
"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."
22. This aspect is further considered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. State of
Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293, wherein it is observed as under:
"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."
15 59.APL.2002-2025 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
23. In the light of above observations if the facts of the
present case are taken into consideration as observed earlier
none of the revenue records shows that the said land was a
Bhudan Land, and therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can
be said that the Applicants were knowing that the said land was
a Bhudan Land and knowingly they have entered into an
agreement to sale and executed the sale deed in favour of the
Non-applicant No.2. In absence of these ingredients, it can't be
said that there was an intention since inception on the part of
the present Applicants. At the most, it can be said that, it is a
civil dispute between the present Applicants and the
Non-applicant No.2 which can be addressed by the Civil Court.
In the absence of an intention since inception, no offence is
made out under Section 420 of IPC.
24. The Applicants further charged with the offence
punishable under Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC. The offence
punishable under Section 467 of IPC deals with the offence of
forgery. The essential ingredients to constitute the offence
punishable under this Section are:
(i) commission of forgery;
16 59.APL.2002-2025 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
(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
(d) which purports to give authority to any person
to make or transfer any valuable security; or
(e) 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.
In the light of these ingredients if the allegations
against the present Applicants are seen there is no whisper that
the present Applicants have prepared the forged documents and
the said forged documents are used for the monetary benefits,
and therefore, the offence punishable under Sections 467 and
468 of IPC on the basis of the charge-sheet is also not made out.
17 59.APL.2002-2025 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
25. By applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court while considering the application for discharging of
the accused, the Court has to consider the question of framing
of the charge under Sections 227 or 239 of Cr.P.C., the Court has
undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against
the accused has been made out. The materials placed before the
Court if discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has
not been properly explained the Court will be, fully justified in
framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. Thus, the test to
determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the
facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of
universal application. By and large however if two views are
equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence
produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not
grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his
right to discharge the accused. Thus, in exercising his
jurisdiction under Section 227 or 239 of Cr.P.C., the Judge which
is under the present Code has to act by sifting and paying the
evidence which is collected during the investigation.
18 59.APL.2002-2025 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
26. By applying the said test to the present case, even
not grave suspicion is raised from the investigation papers. In
view of that, the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Court No.3, Hinganghat, District Wardha as well as the
order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hinganghat
deserves to be quashed and set aside. Both the Courts have not
considered that the revenue record nowhere discloses that the
land was a Bhudan Land and the various transactions have
already taken place on the said land since 1984-85. Both the
Courts have also not considered that nothing is on record
collected during investigation by the Investigating Agency to
show that there was an intention since inception to infer that
with dishonest intention the present Applicants entered into the
transaction. At the most, the civil dispute may arose between
the parties but that would not sufficient to attract the offence
punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. In view of
that, the Applications deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
i. Criminal Applications are allowed.
19 59.APL.2002-2025 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
ii. The order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Court No.3, Hinganghat, District Wardha
below Exh.72 in R.C.C. No.299/2018 dated
21.10.2022 and confirmed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Hinganghat in Criminal Revision
Application No.27/2022 dated 28.03.2023, is hereby
quashed and set aside.
iii. The present Applicants are discharged from the
offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471
read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
iv. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the
observation in respect of the other Applicants.
27. 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: 23/02/2026 11:20:23
