Maruti Nivrutti Navle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

sat 1 wp 2160-2011 and 2176-2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2160 OF 2011

¶4

Maruti Nivrutti Navle

¶5

 ...Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶8

...Respondent

¶9

WITH

¶10

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2176 OF 2011

¶11

Pavan Gandhi Charity Trust & Ors. ...Petitioners
vs.

¶12

Maruti Nivruti Navale & Ors....Respondents

¶13

Mr.A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel with Mr.Vineet B. Naik
i/b. Mr.Sukand R. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner in
Writ Petition Nos.2160/2011 and for Respondent Nos.1 and 2
in Writ Petition No.2176/2011.

¶14

Mr.S.B. Shetye, Advocate for the Petitioner in Writ
Petition No.2176/2011 and for Respondent No.2 in Writ
Petition No.2160/2011.

¶15

Ms.M.H. Mhatre, APP for the State in both the petitions.

¶16

 CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE &
 U.D. SALVI, JJ.

¶17

AUGUST 5, 2011

¶18

P.C. :-

¶19

1Heard Mr.Mundargi, the learned Senior Counsel

¶20

with Mr.Naik and Mr.Kulkarni for the petitioner in Writ

¶21

sat 2 wp 2160-2011 and 2176-2011

¶22

Petition No.2160/2011 and Mr.Shetye, the learned Counsel
for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.2176/2011.
Ms.Mhatre, the learned APP appears for the State in both
the petitions which are interconnected.

¶23

2The petitioner in the first petition is a Founder

¶24

President and Managing Trustee of an education society by
name Sinhgad Technical Education Society (the Society for
short) whereas the petitioners in the second petition are
the trustees of Pavan Gandhi Charity Trust (the Trust for
short) which has filed a complaint initially with the Paud
Police Station and subsequently, with the Shivaji Nagar
Police Station, Pune. On the basis of the said complaint
with the Shivaji Nagar Police Station,CR No.168/2011 for
the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and
471 read with 34 of IPC has been registered. The
petitioner in the first petition has, therefore, prayed
for quashing and setting aside the said CR (FIR No.

¶25

168/2011) registered on 20th July, 2011. Whereas in the
second petition, prayer clause (a) does not survive and as

¶26

per prayer clause (b), the petitioners pray for directions
to take strict and suitable action against the police

¶27

sat 3 wp 2160-2011 and 2176-2011

¶28

officers for their high-handed, malafide and arbitrary
actions for not registering the offence at the first
instance on receipt of the complaint transferred from the
PaudPolice Station.

¶29

3The Trust was registered sometimes in the year
1987 and it started a school for the children coming from
economicallymarginalisedclass.ShriChainsukh
Shobhachand Gandhi retired from the post of Vice-President
of a private firm by name Sudarshan Chemicals Limited in
the year 1988 and before his retirement, his elder son
Pavan died in an accident on 12.1.87. Therefore, the
family decided to start a charity trust in the name of the
deceased and purchased about 11.5 acres of land in village
Sutarwadi (Ambadvet) Taluka Mulshi, District Pune. On part
of the said property i.e. Survey No.154/6/1 admeasuring
about 57 Ares, a school building admeasuring about 650
sq.mtrs was constructed and in the year 2005, an English
Medium school was started with the help of Loila School.
Sometimes in March 2008, there were negotiations between

¶30

the Trust and the Society and it was agreed that the
school along with the land admeasuring 57 Ares will be

¶31

sat 4 wp 2160-2011 and 2176-2011

¶32

leased out to the Society for running the very same school
for poor children and a Lease Deed was signed and
registered on 13th May, 2008. Lease period agreed was 35
months. Few days prior to this Agreement dated 13th May,
2008, two Memorandums of Understanding and one Lease
Agreement were signed on or about 7th or 10th May, 2008. The
first MOU was in respect of the first part on which the
school was running i.e. 57 Ares land and the second MOU
was for the sale of the remaining land. Whereas the Lease
Agreement was for a period of 87 years and 1 month in
respect of the first part of the property. These Agreement
of Lease as well as MOUs were not registered.

¶33

4On expiry of the lease period of 35 months, the
Trust issued Advocate’s notice to the Society on 19th
February, 2011 to take over the lease property i.e. the
school along with the land admeasuring 57 Ares. This
notice was replied and the disputes between the parties
commenced. The Society claimed that the Lease Deed signed

¶34

for 35 months was only a temporary arrangement or a

¶35

stopgap arrangement and the Lease Deed signed for 87 years
has come into effect after the expiry of the Lease Deed

¶36

sat 5 wp 2160-2011 and 2176-2011

¶37

for 35 months and therefore, the Society will continue to
run the schools and the Trust could not ask for the return
of the property. It appears that some advertisements were
also published by the Society in some local newspapers and
it is under these circumstances, Shri Chainsukh Gandhi
approached the Paud Police Station on 18th May, 2011 with a
complaint of forgery and cheating. This complaint was
transferred for investigation to the Shivaji Nagar Police
Station and it is alleged that no CR was registered by the
said police station purportedly on account of the
interference by higher ups.

¶38

5Be that as it may, we are required to consider
whether the first petitioner has made out a case for
quashing of FIR No.168/2011. So far as the second petition
is concerned, Mr.Shetye, the learned Counsel in his
arguments before us has not pressed for directions to take
action against the police officers, as of now.

¶39

6As per the complainant, though two MOUs were
signed on 10th May, 2008 along with the Lease Deed for 87
years, it was subsequently decided between the parties and

¶40

sat 6 wp 2160-2011 and 2176-2011

¶41

more particularly, at the instance of Shri Navale that
Sinhgad Education Society would be interested only in
taking the school building and the adjoining land
admeasuring 57 Ares on lease for a period of 35 months and
it was not interested in purchasing the property or taking
it on lease for 87 years. On registration of the Lease
Agreement for 35 months, on 13th May, 2008 it was agreed
that the two MOUs and the Lease Agreement for 87 years
were not to be acted upon, returned to the trust and were
superseded. However, when the Society received the quit
notice, these documents, which were not returned despite
reminders from time to time, were manipulated/forged and
sought to be used so as to retain the entire property or
the property under Lease Agreement. The complainant also
pointed out that on the basis of the very same documents
which were agreed to be only drafts and superseded, the
Society has filed civil suits for Specific Performance.

¶42

7It was submitted by Mr.Mundargi, the learned
Senior Counsel that signing of the two MOUs on 10th May,
2008 along with the Agreement for lease for the period of
87 years has not been disputed and therefore, there is no

¶43

sat 7 wp 2160-2011 and 2176-2011

¶44

case even for investigation on the charge of fabrication
of documents or use of fabricated documents. He further
submitted that the parties had agreed right on 10th May,
2008 itself that on expiry of 35 months, the agreement for
87 years of lease could be effective and therefore, there
is neither a case of forgery nor cheating. He also
submitted that the property under lease has been in
possession of the Society, it has constructed some more
buildings and developed further infrastructure as a result
of which the strength of students has gone up. The purpose
for which the property was leased out has not been diluted
in any way and therefore, the commitments made in the
lease agreement have been maintained. In any case, the
Society has filed civil suits on or around 1st July 2011
and the disputes between the parties are entirely of civil
nature. Under these circumstances, the investigation
undertaken on registration of CR No.168/2011 is motivated,
under duress and on account of the outside influence, the
police have registered the CR. It was, therefore, urged
to quash and set aside the CR.

¶45

Mr.Shetye, the learned Counsel for the

¶46

¶47

sat 8 wp 2160-2011 and 2176-2011

¶48

complainant-trust, on the other hand, he invited our
attention to the purported lease agreement dated 7th March,
2011 and the blank portion subsequently written in black
ink as well as the letter dated 18th April, 2011 from the
Society to the Trustees of the Trust. It was pointed out
by Mr.Shetye that this letter though was dated 18th April,
2011, has been received by the trust only on 19th May,
2011. It has been alleged in the letter that on 7th March,
2011, Mr.Chainsukh Gandhi and other trustees have signed
the lease agreement dated 7th March, 2011 at Pune.
Mr.Shetye has also submitted that on 7th March, 2011,
Mr.Chainsukh Gandhi was not at Pune and instead he was
hospitalised at Delhi. He also referred to the handwriting
made in the lease agreement dated 7th March, 2011 and
pointed out that it was nothing short of forgery to use
the said document to the advantage of the Society so as to
retain the property in its own possession. He alleged that
the handwritten details amounted to forgery as they were
intended to rob the property on the ground that a fresh
lease agreement was signed between the parties recently.

¶49

Ms.Mhatre, the learned APP also submitted that

¶50

¶51

sat 9 wp 2160-2011 and 2176-2011

¶52

the complaint registered is required to be investigated
and during the course of investigation till now, it has
been noticed that the first petitioner made false
declarations to obtain permission for the school for the
academic year 2008-2009, in as much as he claimed that as
on 5/5/2008 he had purchased the land where the school
building is standing and admeasuring 57 ARs.

¶53

10We have given our anxious considerations to the
arguments advanced by all the parties before us and we
have also perused the documents and more particularly, the
purported Lease Deed dated 7th March, 2011. We have also
considered the scheme of Sections 463, 464, 465, 468, 471
and 420 of IPC. It is well settled that to investigate a
complaint registered under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., it is
the duty of the police and its statutory duty cannot be
stiffled or interfered with lightly or in casual manners.
It is only when a case is made out that even on the face
of the complaint, no offence could be made out for
investigation, that the power to investigate under Section
154 could be taken away. In the instant case, we are
satisfied that a prima facie case to undertake the

¶54

sat 10 wp 2160-2011 and 2176-2011

¶55

investigation has been made out. It is well settled that
for the purpose of quashing the complaint, it is necessary
to consider whether the allegations in the complaint,
prima facie, make out an offence or not. It is not
necessary to scrutinise the allegations for the purpose of
deciding whether such allegations are likely to be upheld
at the trial. For quashing the complaint by way of action
at the threshold, it is, therefore, necessary to consider
whether on the basis of the allegations a criminal offence
is constituted or not. Having regard to this position in
law, we are satisfied that the complaint submitted by the
Trust and on the basis of which FIR No.168 of 2011 has
been registered requires to be investigated by the police
and, there is no case made out to quash and set aside the
said FIR at the threshold.

¶56

11Hence, Criminal Writ Petition No.2160/2011 is
dismissed and Criminal Writ Petition No.2176/2011 is

¶57

disposed as not pressed.

¶58

12We make it clear that this order of dismissal of
writ petition is without prejudice to the rights and

¶59

sat 11 wp 2160-2011 and 2176-2011

¶60

contentions of the parties in the proceedings before any
subordinate courts.

¶61

(U.D. SALVI, J) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J)

Maruti Nivrutti Navle v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruti Nivrutti Navle v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Menghraj Gehi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Harita Sunil Parab Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sher Bahadur Akram Khan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Salim Abdul Rajjak Baig Vs the State of Maharashtra

Navinchandra Umarshi Dedhia Vs Inspector of Police, Mantunga Police Station and Ors.

Dinesh Shyamlal Chandnani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.