Manoj Gangadhar Burkule vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 11 March, 2026

Author: Amit Borkar

Bench: Amit Borkar

2026:BHC-AS:11935-DB
                                                                               28-WP-5746-18-final.doc



                                                                                           Sayali


                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  SAYALI                              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
  DEEPAK
  UPASANI
                                            WRIT PETITION NO. 5746 OF 2018
  Digitally signed
  by SAYALI
  DEEPAK
  UPASANI
  Date: 2026.03.11   Manoj Gangadhar Burkule                          ... Petitioner
  17:57:04 +0530
                                V/s.
                     The State of Maharashtra and Others              ... Respondents

                     Mr. Amey Deshpande, for Petitioner.
                     Mrs Megha S. Bajoria, APP for State-Respondent no.
                     1.
                     Mr. Pratik Sabrad, Amey C. Sawant, Eshwaree S.
                     Kudalkar, for Respondent no. 2.
                     Mr. Mustafa Latif Shaikh, PSI, MumbaiNaka Police
                     Station, Nashik.



                                                         CORAM   : AMIT BORKAR, J.

DATED : MARCH 11, 2026

P.C.:

1. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The petition challenges the registration and continuation of the First Information Report against the petitioner. Before examining the legality of the impugned FIR, it becomes necessary to understand the nature of allegations as disclosed from the

28-WP-5746-18-final.doc

contents of the complaint itself. The allegations narrated in the FIR may therefore be briefly stated.

2. According to the complainant, an agreement to sell was executed between the landowner and the complainant in respect of a parcel of land. Under the said agreement, the total sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 16,00,000/-. Out of the said amount, the complainant claims to have paid an amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- to the Rokade family. The agreement itself contains a specific condition relating to the nature of the land. It records that the property in question is Inam land. For such land, prior permission of the Collector is necessary before any valid sale deed can be executed. The agreement further provides that if such permission is not granted by the Collector, the amount received from the complainant would be returned to him.

3. According to the complainant, the Additional Collector, Nashik, by order dated 03 June 2014, refused to grant permission for the sale of the said land in favour of the complainant. As a result, the contemplated sale transaction between the complainant and the Rokade family could not be completed. The agreement itself had contemplated such a situation and provided for repayment of the amount received in the event that the permission of the Collector was not granted.

4. According to the complainant, thereafter the Rokade family, after obtaining the necessary permission from the Collector, sold the same parcel of land to the petitioner by executing a registered

28-WP-5746-18-final.doc

sale deed dated 12 May 2016. According to the petitioner, apart from the amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- allegedly paid by the complainant, the Rokade family had not received any further amount under the earlier agreement to sell. It is also pointed out that certain cheques issued by the complainant towards payment of consideration had been dishonoured. The petitioner submits that the returned cheque memos can be produced before the Court whenever necessary.

5. According to the complainant, by a letter dated 06 February 2017 another landowner informed the complainant that he was willing to return the amount which had been received under the agreement to sell between the complainant and the Rokade family. However, instead of accepting the said offer of repayment, the complainant proceeded to lodge the present FIR on 19 June 2017 against the petitioner and other persons. In the above background, the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the registration of the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 464(2), 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

6. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the contents of the FIR and the documents placed on record. It is submitted that even if the allegations made in the FIR are taken at their face value and accepted as they stand, no ingredients of the alleged offences are made out against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the dispute essentially

28-WP-5746-18-final.doc

arises from a transaction of agreement to sell between the complainant and the Rokade family. The petitioner was not a party to that agreement. The petitioner subsequently purchased the property through a registered sale deed after the necessary permission of the Collector was obtained. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to misuse of criminal law and an abuse of the process of the Court.

7. On the other hand, the learned Advocate appearing for the complainant has opposed the petition. It is contended that the petitioner was aware of the prior agreement to sell executed between the complainant and the Rokade family. It is also pointed out that the petitioner had himself applied for permission under Section 5(3) of the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 for transfer of the land. According to the complainant, this clearly shows that the petitioner had knowledge about the earlier transaction. It is therefore submitted that despite such knowledge the petitioner proceeded to purchase the property. According to the complainant, such conduct attracts the offences punishable under Sections 420, 464(2), 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the contents of the FIR along with the documents placed on record. In my view, the allegations made in the FIR, even if accepted as true for the purpose of examination,

28-WP-5746-18-final.doc

essentially disclose a dispute arising out of a contractual transaction between the complainant and the original landowners. The agreement to sell executed between the complainant and the Rokade family clearly records that the land in question is Inam land and that permission of the Collector is required before the execution of a valid sale deed. The agreement itself further records that in case such permission is not granted, the amount received from the complainant would be returned.

9. It is not in dispute that the Additional Collector refused to grant permission for sale of the land in favour of the complainant by order dated 03 June 2014. Once such permission was refused, the agreement between the complainant and the Rokade family could not be specifically performed unless such permission was subsequently granted. The agreement itself contemplated refund of the amount in such a situation.

10. If the complainant was aggrieved by the conduct of the Rokade family in subsequently selling the property to another person, the proper remedy available to the complainant was to institute appropriate civil proceedings. The complainant could have sought relief such as recovery of the amount paid or enforcement of contractual rights through civil proceedings. However, the mere fact that the petitioner purchased the property from the original owners after obtaining the necessary permission from the competent authority does not by itself constitute any criminal offence.

28-WP-5746-18-final.doc

11. The ingredients of the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code require the existence of dishonest intention at the time of making the representation. Similarly, offences relating to forgery under Sections 464 and 468 require creation of a false document with an intention to cause damage or support a fraudulent claim. The allegations in the FIR do not disclose any material to show that the petitioner created any false document or acted with fraudulent intention so as to deceive the complainant.

12. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim vs State of Bihar reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 has clearly observed that mere execution of a sale deed in respect of property which is claimed by another person does not by itself amount to forgery or cheating unless the necessary ingredients of the offences are clearly established. A similar view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the recent decision in Radheyshyam and Others vs State of Rajasthan and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2311.

13. Applying the above principles to the present case, the allegations in the FIR primarily indicate a civil dispute relating to enforcement of contractual rights arising out of an agreement to sell. The petitioner was not a party to the said agreement. The petitioner purchased the property by a registered sale deed after the Collector granted permission for transfer. In the absence of any specific allegations showing fraudulent intention or creation

28-WP-5746-18-final.doc

of false documents by the petitioner, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out.

14. In these circumstances, permitting the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioner would serve no legitimate purpose. On the contrary, it would amount to misuse of the criminal justice process for resolution of what is essentially a civil dispute. The inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are intended to prevent such abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice.

15. For these reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed. Rule is therefore made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) qua petitioner only. Consequently, Criminal Case No. 212 of 2019 arising out of the impugned FIR stands quashed and set aside qua petitioner only.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)