Allowed

Manish Vaijinath Kawale v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Sept 2012APPLN/894/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal applicants challenged FIRs regarding multiple sales of property. The High Court held that the facts did not disclose cheating or forgery, held that no offense was committed, and allowed the applications to quash the proceedings and dismiss the attachment.

What did the court decide?

The criminal applications under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the FIR and attachment of cases were allowed and made absolute.

Manish Vaijinath Kawale Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

Cri.Appln.No.894/2012 with Cri.Appln.No.895/2012

¶2

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.894 OF 2012

¶6

Manish s/o Vaijnath Kawale,
Age 21 years, Occ. Agri. & Business,
R/o Ganeshnagar, Nanded,
Taluka and District Nanded. ...

¶7

...APPLICANT

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1.The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Inspector,
Police Station, Shivajinagar,
Nanded.
(Copy to be served on
Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Judicature at Bombay,
Bench at Aurangabad)

¶10

2. The Superintendent of Police, Nanded, District Nanded.

¶11

3. Nagesh Shivanand Swami, Age 24 years, Occ. Education, R/o Indraprasthanagar, Nanded, Taluka and District Nanded. ... RESPONDENTS

¶12

.....

¶13

Shri N.L. Jadhav, Advocate for applicant
Mrs. Y.M. Kshirsagar, A.P.P. for respondents 1 & 2
Shri B.N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for respondent No.3

¶14

.....

¶15

W I T H

¶16

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.895 OF 2012

¶17

Manish s/o Vaijnath Kawale,
Age 21 years, Occ. Agri. & Business,
R/o Ganeshnagar, Nanded,
Taluka and District Nanded. ...APPLICANT

¶18

Cri.Appln.No.894/2012 with Cri.Appln.No.895/2012

¶19

¶20

VERSUS

¶21

1. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Inspector, Police Station, Shivajinagar, Nanded. (Copy to be served on Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad)

¶22

2. The Superintendent of Police, Nanded, District Nanded.

¶23

3. Ashok s/o Mallaya Kondraj Age 48 years, Occ. Business, R/o Kailasnagar, Nanded, Taluka and District Nanded. ... RESPONDENTS

¶24

.....

¶25

Shri N.L. Jadhav, Advocate for applicant
Mrs. Y.M. Kshirsagar, A.P.P. for respondents 1 & 2
Shri B.N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for respondent No.3

¶26

.....

¶27

DATED: 27th September, 2012

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.H. Joshi, J.):

¶29

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶30

Heard by consent.

¶31

2.Brief story in both the petitions is as
follows :-

¶32

(a)The property was sold by the original vendor

¶33

Cri.Appln.No.894/2012 with Cri.Appln.No.895/2012

¶34

¶35

to the complainant.

¶36

(b)The same vendor has again sold same property

¶37

in favour of the applicant in both the
applications.

¶38

(c)According to the complainant, the new buyer
and vendor are in collusion, have conspired and
have thereby cheated the complainant.

¶39

3.If at all the previous vendors have conveyed
the property which was already sold by them to the
complainant, in any case the complainant is not
cheated.

¶40

4.Even if the complainant's version that the

¶41

new purchaser and vendor have acted in collusion in
order to defeat the right of the complainant, no
offence whatsoever for seeking delivery of property by
the complainant by way of deception has occurred.

¶42

5.It is not the case that any other offence

¶43

such as impersonation or forgery is committed.

¶44

6.Therefore, present are the cases where

¶45

contents of both complaints do not describe even barely

¶46

Cri.Appln.No.894/2012 with Cri.Appln.No.895/2012

¶47

¶48

the ingredients of offence whatsoever against the
complainant.

¶49

7.In the result, both the applications succeed.
Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B) in
both the applications.

Manish Vaijinath Kawale v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Vaijinath Kawale v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Dadarao Mhaslekar Vs the State of Mah

Rajkumar Omprakash Basin Vs State of Maha

The State of Mah Vs Kalpesh Kailash Rasoda and Ors.

Paramjeet Babulal Saluja @ Tillu Shet and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

The State of Mah Vs Raju Lamuwel Shinde and Ors.

Mohammad Abyub Mohammad Makarani and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.