[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ajay S/O. Lankeshwar Dhargawe vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Pachpaoli, ... on 14 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:599-DB
J-apl380.23 final.odt 1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.380 OF 2023
Ajay S/o Lankeshwar Dhargawe,
Aged about : 52 years,
Occupation : Private,
R/o. Plot No. 22, Ashi Nagar,
Nagpur-17 : APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through, Police Station Officer,
Police Station Pachpaoli,
Nagpur City, Nagpur.
2. Sanjay S/o. Lankeshwar Dhargawe,
Aged about : 50 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. Rachna Sayantara Phase No. 2,
Flat No. A/403,
Hazari Pahad Katol Road,
Nagpur-13 : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. Vivek R. Thote, Advocate for Applicant.
Mrs. Swati Kolhe, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Syed Salman Ali, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 18th DECEMBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 14th JANUARY, 2026.
JUDGMENT :
(Per : Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.)
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code challenging the First Information Report
bearing Crime No.1252/2022, dated 4.11.2022, registered with
respondent No.1 against the applicant for the offence punishable
under Sections 420, 467 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Since during the pendency of the present application,
charge-sheet was filed in the matter, the said charge-sheet bearing
No.184/2025 culminating into Regular Criminal Case
No.4858/2025 is also challenged by way of an amendment.
4. As per the First Information Report lodged by
respondent No.2, the applicant is his brother and they are sons of
one Lankeshwar Dhargave. It is further alleged that they are in
total three brothers and two sisters. Their father named above
owned a Plot bearing No.22, at Ashinagar Teka, Nagpur,
admeasuring 4000 Sq. ft. It is further stated that during the
lifetime of their father, even though the father and the other
brothers and sisters intended to sell the same and distribute the sale
proceeds amongst them equally, it was only on the resistance of the
applicant that the same could not materialized. It is further stated
in the First Information Report that on 8.2.2021 the father of the
parties expired and when the first informant went to Ashinagar
Zone of Nagpur Municipal Corporation, for mutating his name, it
was revealed that late father had executed a Will in favour of the
applicant. According to the first informant, the said Will is bogus
since his father never executed the Will and the signatures
appearing thereon are false. Since according to the first informant,
the Will is bogs and outcome of fraud, the First Information Report
in question is lodged. It is this First Information Report and the
consequent charge-sheet which is challenged in the present
application on various grounds.
5. We have heard Mr. Vivek R. Thote, learned counsel for
the applicant, Mrs. Swati Kolhe, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Syed Salmal Ali,
learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
6. Mr. Vivek R. Thote, learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the First Information Report and the consequent
criminal proceedings are nothing but abuse of process of Court
since no offence is made out even assuming that the allegations in
the First Information Report are true. He further submits that the
dispute between parties is entirely of civil nature which relates to
the authenticity or otherwise of the Will which cannot be
adjudicated in criminal proceedings. It is, therefore, his submission
that the dispute of civil nature has been given a colour of
criminality by the first informant. He further states that there is a
finding by the Civil Court regarding the property being self acquired
and not ancestral in civil suit bearing R.C.S. No.467/2011 which
was filed by the first informant/complainant. He also submits that
the applicant has also filed an application under Section 267 of the
Indian Succession Act for grant of Probate and the matter is
pending. He, therefore, submits that the First Information Report is
nothing but an outcome of vindictive attitude being nurtured by the
first informant and even otherwise no offence is made out against
the applicant.
7. Per contra, Mrs. Swati Kolhe, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 submits that even though the
matter in hand has some civil tenor, that would not be a reason to
quash the criminal proceeding in its entirety, more particularly
when there would be some aspects which would be required to be
adjudicated at the trial.
8. Mr. Syed Salman Ali, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 while supporting the contentions advanced by the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that one of the
witness to the Will has given a statement which creates certain
doubts about the authenticity and execution of the Will. He further
submits that there is opinion of handwriting expert which states
that the signatures appearing on the Will are different from the
signatures on admitted documents. He, therefore, submits that all
these aspects would be requiring a full-fledge trial and, therefore,
this would not be case to quash the criminal proceedings.
9. In the backdrop of these facts and the documents
placed before us we have appreciated the contentions canvassed by
the learned counsels for the respective parties. As can be seen from
the First Information Report in question, the same alleges that it
was the applicant who had resisted sale of property and distribution
of sale proceeds amongst co-sharers during the lifetime of their
father. The said First Information Report further states that
signatures appearing on the Will are not made by the testator i.e.
their father and, therefore, the said document is outcome of fraud
and forgery. It is, however, noteworthy to mention that except for
the say of the first informant there is nothing on record at least to
show something fishy about the alleged Will. Furthermore, the
statement of one Dilip Awsare, who is a witness to the Will at least
prima facie show that the Will was executed validly by the testator.
Even though the statement of another witness, namely, Raju Wagh
spells out some discrepancies in the execution of the alleged Will,
that cannot be the sole basis for continuation of criminal
proceedings against the applicant, more particularly when there is
no adjudication about the authenticity and correctness of execution
and validity of the Will. The reliance placed by the first informant
on the opinion of the handwriting expert cannot take his case much
further at this stage since admittedly the said opinion is a private
opinion obtained at the behest of the first informant himself. At
this juncture it is noteworthy to mention that the charge-sheet
states that an opinion has been sought from the Government
examiner of document of CID but the same is awaited. Thus,
prima facie nothing incriminating has been found against the
applicant so as to make him to face a criminal trial, more
particularly when there is no adjudication by the competent Court
regarding the authenticity of the Will.
10. Thus, in our view making the applicant to face a
criminal trial would an abuse of process of Court, since as held by
the Supreme Court time and again that facing criminal prosecution
and summoning a person by a criminal Court is a matter of serious
concern and cannot be taken lightly. In our view, therefore, no
offence is made out at this stage against the applicant. The dispute
being entirely civil in nature and would boil down to the veracity
and authenticity of the Will. Thus, the offences complained of i.e.
420 of the Indian Penal Code which speaks about cheating and
dis-honestly inducing delivery of property contemplates fraudulent
or dis-honest, inducement which in turn necessarily contemplates
mens rea which is absent in the present case. Furthermore, as far
as the offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 is concerned, as we
have observed above, there is no conclusive finding regarding
forgery or otherwise of the alleged Will. Thus, in our view no
offence is made out as against the applicant and further
continuation of the criminal proceedings would put him to serious
prejudice. Thus, by taking aid of the judgment of State of Haryana
and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in AIR 1992 SC
604, we are of the considered opinion that the First Information
Report and the consequent proceeding needs to be quashed and set
aside. We, therefore, pass the following order :
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) The First Informant Report bearing Crime
No.1252/2022, dated 4.11.2012, registered by the respondent No.1
and Charge-sheet No.184/2025, registered as Regular Criminal
Case No.4858/2025 pending before the 15th Joint Civil Judge,
Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur for the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the
Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside to the extent of
applicant, namely, Ajay s/o. Lankeshwar Dhargawe.
(iii) The application is disposed of.
(Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.) (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)
wadode
Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/01/2026 16:22:43
