[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Rajanish Kaur Karamsing Bedi And ... vs State Of Mah., Thr. Pso P S Ghatanji Dist ... on 28 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:1623-DB
1 72.APL.1159-2019.JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1159 OF 2019
1. Rajanish Kaur Karamsing Bedi,
Aged about 46 yrs., Occ. Service,
(Lecturer in M.I.T. College, Pune),
2. Smt. Jaswant Kaur Karamsing Bedi,
Aged about 81 yrs., Occ. Nil,
Both the applicants R/o Flat No.
1102, Tower No.3, AF Residency,
Wadgaon, Sheri, Pune. APPLICANTS
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O., P.S. Ghatanji,
Distt. Yavatmal.
2. Abraham Thundiparambir Onuni,
Aged about 65 yrs., Occ. Free Lancer
Reporter for Times of India,
R/o House No. 39, Pushpakunj
Society, Arni Road, Yavatmal. NON-APPLICANTS
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. S.B. Wahane, Advocate a/w Mr. Y.R. Sawaitul, Advocate for
the Applicants.
Mr. N.B. Jawade, APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State.
Mr. D.A. Sonwane, Advocate for the Non-applicant No.2.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 28th JANUARY, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
2 72.APL.1159-2019.JUDGMENT.odt
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learned
Counsel for the respective parties.
3. The present Application is preferred by the
Applicants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with
Crime No.333/2018 registered with Police Station Ghatanji,
District Yavatmal for the offence punishable under Sections
420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing
R.C.C. No. 203/2019.
4. The crime is registered on the basis of a report
lodged by the Non-applicant No.2 on an allegation that,
Mahatma Jyotiba Fule Shikshan Sanstha is a registered Trust
which runs schools and colleges within the District of Yavatmal.
It is stated in the complaint that, one Ganpat Kannalwar had
given 1 acre 20 gunthas land out of Survey No.160 situated at
Sawargaon Mangi, Tq. Ghatanji by appointing his nephew
namely Vitthal Kannalwar. However, the said land could not be
3 72.APL.1159-2019.JUDGMENT.odt
registered in the name of the Society due to provisions of
Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of
Holding Act. Thereafter, three acres land was decided to be
purchased from the said Ganpat Kannalwar for consideration of
Rs.33,000/- out of the funds of Trust. Accordingly, the sale-deed
was executed in the name of the present Applicant No.1 and not
in the name of Trust. The Complainant further stated that, sum
of Rs.78,00,000/- of Society was misappropriated and false
accounts were prepared for the same. It is further alleged that,
the Audit Reports are also falsely made alongwith the other
contentions raised in the complaint. On the basis of the said
report Police have registered the crime against the present
Applicants.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants, who
submitted that due to the dispute between the two groups of
Trustees, this FIR came to be lodged. In fact, the present
Applicants had purchased the said property by paying the
consideration mount. Therefore, the question of donation of
land and converting the said land by the Applicants in their
favour does not arise. He invited my attention towards the sale
4 72.APL.1159-2019.JUDGMENT.odt
deed executed in favour of the Applicant No.1 by the original
owner. The statement of Ganpat Gangaram Kannalwar and the
reply given by the Secretary of Mahatma Jyotiba Fule Shikshan
Sanstha, Umarsara which sufficiently shows that no land was
donated to the Institute but the said land was sold to the
Applicant No.1, and therefore, it is standing in the name of the
Applicants. Therefore, the offence under Section 420 of IPC is
not made out. He submitted that, the ingredients of the offence
punishable under Sections 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC
are also not made out as the allegations are not substantiated by
any material to show that the Applicants have forged any
document and used the same as a genuine one. In view of that,
the Application deserves to be allowed.
6. Per contra, learned APP opposed the said
contentions and taken me through the entire charge-sheet and
submitted that, considering the statements of various witnesses
prima facie case is made out against the present Applicants, and
therefore, the Application deserves to be rejected. He also
submitted that, during investigation the Investigating Officer
has collected all the documents and which shows that the
5 72.APL.1159-2019.JUDGMENT.odt
Applicants have committed the offence of cheating as well as
the document was used as a genuine one and thus prima facie
offence is made out against the present Applicants.
7. Learned Counsel for the Non-applicant No.2, also
endorsed the same contentions and submitted that, considering
the allegations levelled against the present Applicants, prima
case case is made out against the present Applicants. In view of
that, the Application deserves to be rejected.
8. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the
entire investigation papers, the prosecution has come with a
case that one Abraham Onuni who was the Joint Secretary of
Mahatma Jyotiba Fule Shikshan Sanstha, Umarsara,
Tah. Ghatnaji, District Yavatmal lodged a report stating that
Mahatma Jyotiba Fule Shikshan Sanstha is a registered Trust
which runs schools and colleges within the District of Yavatmal.
It is stated in the complaint that, one Ganpat Kannalwar had
given 1 acre 20 gunthas land out of Survey No.160 situated at
Sawargaon Mangi, Tq. Ghatanji by appointing his nephew
namely Vitthal Kannalwar. However, the said land could not be
registered in the name of the Society, and therefore, the
6 72.APL.1159-2019.JUDGMENT.odt
sale-deed was executed in the name of the present Applicant
No.1 and not in the name of the Trust. The Applicants have also
misappropriated the society fund and thereby committed an
offence.
9. On perusal of the Investigating papers it reveals
that, the sale deed was executed in favour of the Applicant No.1
by the original owner Ganpat Gangaram Kannalwar on
09.12.2002. The statement of said Ganpat Kannalwar was also
recorded during the investigation. On perusal of the statement it
reveals that, he specifically stated that he was the owner of Gat
No. 160 admeasuring 2H 43R of Class-I and it was a barren
land, and therefore, he has permitted to one Karamsingh Bedi to
run a school on the said land. In the year 2002, he has decided
to sell the said land and the Applicant No.1 has shown the
interest to purchase the said land, and therefore, he has decided
to sell the land to him. Accordingly, he received the
consideration amount and executed the sale deed in favour of
the Applicant No.1. Thus, the statement of the original owner of
the said land nowhere reveals that any land is donated by him
to the said Society. During investigation, the Investigating
7 72.APL.1159-2019.JUDGMENT.odt
Officer also gave a questionnaire to the Secretary Mahatma
Jyotiba Fule Shikshan Sanstha, Umarsara. The explanation
given by the Secretary especially to the question No.10 shows
that, the Society is not having any single document to show that
the land was decided to give by Ganpat Kannalwar by way of
donation. There was no resolution to that effect or no donation
deed or gift deed is executed or there is no single document to
show that the said Ganpat Kannalwar has decided to give the
gift or donate the said land to the Society.
10. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it
is necessary to see that whether the allegations levelled against
the present Applicants are substantiated by any material. On
perusal of the entire statements of the record nowhere it reveals
that, any land was donated by the original owner to the Society.
On the contrary, the documentary evidence i.e. the registered
sale deed shows that it was purchased by the Applicant No.1.
11. The record further shows that, one proceeding was
initiated against the present Applicants before the Joint Charity
Commissioner to disqualify them as Trustee. The said
application was allowed and action was taken against the
8 72.APL.1159-2019.JUDGMENT.odt
present Applicants. It is apparent from the said judgment and
order of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati that, the
application was filed under Section 41-D of the Maharashtra
Public Trusts Act by the Joint Secretary T.O. Abraham. Thus,
there is substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for
the Applicants that, due to the dispute between the Trustees the
said crime came to be registered.
12. As far as offence punishable under Section 420 of
IPC is concerned, there has to be some intention since inception.
The ingredients of cheating which is described in Section 415 of
IPC, which reads as under:
"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"."
13. To hold a person guilty of cheating as defined under
Section 415 of IPC, it is necessary to show that he had
fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the
promise with an intention to detain the property. In other
9 72.APL.1159-2019.JUDGMENT.odt
words, Section 415 of IPC which defines cheating requires
deception of any person.
14. In the light of above definition, admittedly there is
nothing on record to show that there was dishonest intention of
deception on the part of the present Applicants. The document
on which the prosecution has relied upon itself is not supporting
the prosecution's case, which shows that the property was
purchased by the Applicant No.1 in his name. It is donated
itself is not substantiated by any material. In view of that,
continuing the criminal proceeding against the present
Applicants would be an abuse of process of law. Therefore,
considering the nature of evidence collected during the
investigation, which prima facie not discloses the offence
punishable under Section 420 of IPC, and therefore, the offence
under Sections 468 and 471 are also not made out against the
present Applicants.
15. In view of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal &
Ors., 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, wherein following principles /
10 72.APL.1159-2019.JUDGMENT.odt
guidelines are laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court for
consideration of the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
"(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
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 72.APL.1159-2019.JUDGMENT.odt
16. In the light of the above observations if the facts of
the present case and the evidence collected during the
investigation are considered, admittedly no offence is made out
against the present Applicants. In that circumstances, forcing
the present Applicants to face the trial would be an abuse of
process of law. In view of that, the Application deserves to be
allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
i. Criminal Application is allowed.
ii. The First Information Report in connection with
Crime No. 333/2018 registered with Police Station
Ghatanji, District Yavatmal for the offence
punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the
consequent proceeding arising out of the same
bearing R.C.C. No. 203/2019, are hereby quashed
and set aside to the extent of the present Applicants.
17. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 02/02/2026 14:10:22
