Partly allowed

Ravindra Laxman Dhumal and Ors. v. Vilas Namdeo Jadhav and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Dec 2012APL/106/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court examined a criminal application questioning prosecution under IPC for cheating, forgery, and conspiracies. While acknowledging the case involves a civil dispute over a duplicate sale deed and dishonest intention, the court held that the prosecution against the sellers was maintainable but quashed proceedings against the purchaser applicants as the dispute pertained to contrac

What did the court decide?

Prosecution quashed and set aside to the extent of original accused Nos. 4 (Sanjay Chandane) and accused No. 5 (Ravindra Dhumal).

Ravindra Laxman Dhumal and Ors. Vs Vilas Namdeo Jadhav and… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

vrd 1 APL106/12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.106 OF 2012

¶5

Mr Ravindra L. Dhumal and ors. ...Applicants v/s

¶6

Mr Vilas N. Jadhav and others ...Respondents

¶7

Mr A.K. Barthakur for Applicants. Mr S.M. Gorwadkar for Respondent No.1. Mr S.S. Pednekar, APP for State.

¶8

CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL J.

¶9

DATED : 10TH DECEMBER 2012.

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

Heard extensively. The prosecution initiated against the applicants by the respondent No.1 – Vilas Dhumal for offence under sections 120(B), 420,465, 467, 468.471 r/w section 34 of IPC by issuance of process dated 2^nd July 2011 is questioned.

¶12

The learned counsel for accused applicants

¶13

has put several facets of the matter, one of them is filing of civil case by original complainant Vilas

¶14

vrd 2 APL106/12

¶15

seeking declaration of the sale deed purportedly executed by Smt Suman Shinde in favour of other purchasers Sanjay and Ravindra. The learned counsel for applicants submits, there could not be a forgery of the document as the transaction of purchase of

¶16

the property from Smt Suman Shinde was a clear transaction of 8^th November 2007, duly registered with the Sub-Registrar vide No.8722/2007. The purchasers Sanjay and Ravindra cannot be branded having committed any fraud in respect of the said sale transaction. The learned counsel also refers to effect of section 195 of IPC to canvass that since civil proceedings are initiated, there will be a bar for taking cognizance of the criminal prosecution.

¶17

The learned counsel has placed reliance on

¶18

the judgment in the matter of Mohammed Ibrahim and

¶19

others v/s State of Bihar and anr., reported in

¶20

(2009) 8 SCC 751 wherein Hon'ble Lordships of

¶21

Supreme Court have discussed scope of section 482 of Cr.P.C., effect of definition of section 464 and

¶22

vrd 3 APL106/12

¶23

what false documents means and context in tune with sections 24, 25 and 29 of IPC.

¶24

We shall have to revert to peculiar facts

¶25

of the present case. The sale deed dated 28^th June 1984 was executed by Smt Suman Shinde in favour of Vilas and his brother Rohidas for land bearing gat

¶26

No.284, admeasuring 3 hectares 39 ares for

¶27

consideration of Rs.15,000/- registered with the Sub-Registrar vide No.5060/1984.

¶28

As stated earlier, it is the same property

¶29

which has been conveyed by Smt Suman Shinde through her son Sandip Shinde and Kumari Anjana Shinde, her

¶30

daughter in favour of the applicants – Sanjay

¶31

Chandane and Ravindra Dhumal. The affairs of

¶32

execution of sale deed of the property which was already sold in the year 1984 implies deceit act on

¶33

the part of the seller of the property to the

¶34

subsequent purchasers who were conscious of entering

¶35

into transaction with Vilas and his brother, still had audacity to enter into sale deed on 7^th November

¶36

vrd 4 APL106/12

¶37

¶38

The Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Thermax Ltd. And ors. v/s K.M. Johny and ors., reported in JT 2011(11) SC 241 has dealt with legal position in paragraph 19 of that judgment which reads as under :-

¶39

“19. It is settled law that the essential ingredients for an offence under section 420, which we have already extracted, is that there has to be dishonest intention to deceive another person. We have already quoted the relevant allegations in the complaint and perusal of the same clearly shows that no such dishonest intention can be seen or even inferred inasmuch as the entire dispute pertains to contractual obligations between the parties. Since the very ingredients of section 420 are not attracted, the prosecution initiated is wholly untenable. Even if we admit that allegations in the complaint do make out a dispute, still it ought to be considered that the same is merely a breach of contract and the same cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right from the beginning of the transaction. Inasmuch as there are number of documents to show that appellant Company had acted in terms of the agreement and in a bona fide manner, it cannot be said that the act of the appellant Company amounts to a breach of contract.”

¶40

vrd 5 APL106/12

¶41

Primarily, the dishonest intention of Smt

¶42

Suman Shinde to execute sale deed in respect of the property which was already conveyed to Vilas and his brother is projected and demonstrated. Though the learned counsel for applicants submits that Smt Suman Shinde was not capable to execute the sale

¶43

deed or she had not cheated, may be correct, however, that will not be a subject of dealing with the issue as she is facing prosecution initiated by Vilas and Ravindra. The complaint primarily

¶44

indicate role played by the original accused no.1 Smt Suman Shinde, her son Sandip and her daughter Anjana to execute the sale deed in favour of the purchasers. The issuance of process for offence

¶45

under sections 120(B), 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w section 34 of IPC shall be therefore maintainable

¶46

quo the original accused Nos.1 to 3, however, the

¶47

prosecution is quashed and set aside to the extent of original accused Nos.4 – Sanjay Chandane and accused No.5 – Ravindra Dhumal, the purchasers of the property. The learned counsel submits that

¶48

vrd 6 APL106/12

¶49

1984 sale deed is also subject of civil proceedings.

¶50

Applications are partly allowed.

¶51

(K.U. CHANDIWAL J.)

Ravindra Laxman Dhumal and Ors. v. Vilas Namdeo Jadhav and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Laxman Dhumal and Ors. v. Vilas Namdeo Jadhav 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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sajid Usman Batliwala

Union of India Vs Mahmood Yakubali Umer and Anr.

Noel Naval Tata and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vandana D. Nagpal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Krishnarao Dhondiba Bhegade and Anr. Vs Narayan Devidas Pandit and Anr.

Choith Nanikram Harchandani Vs Union of India and Ors.