Allowed

Ashok S/O Bhavarilal Chhajed v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Jun 2018APPLN/3058/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal application sought the quashing of an FIR under Section 482 CrPC relating to forgery, cheating, and extortion. The High Court held that the allegations of false layout plans and blackmail were unfounded and essentially hopeless. The court concluded that allowing the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law and consequently allowed the application, quashing the FIR.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.90/2014 is quashed; the application is allowed, and Rule is made absolute.

Ashok S/O Bhavarilal Chhajed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Corruption | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 Application No.3058 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Criminal Application No.3058 of 2015

¶4

Ashok s/o Bhavarilal Chhajed, Age 50 years, Occupation : Business, R/o Lokseva, Kacheri Road, Amalner, Taluka Amalner, District Jalgaon. .. Applicant.

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, Through Inspector, Police Station Amalner, Taluka Amalner, District Jalgaon. 2) Mohan s/o Balaji Satpute, Age 51 years, Occupation : Business, R/o Station Road, Amalner, District Jalgaon. .. Respondents.

¶7

Shri. Bharat R. Waramma, Advocate, for applicant.

¶8

Mrs. D.S. Jape, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.1.

¶9

Shri. A.D. Sonkawade, Advocate, holding for Shri. A.V. Hon, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶10

Coram: T.V. NALAWADE & K.L. WADANE, JJ.

¶11

Date: 26 JUNE 2018

¶12

2 Application No.3058 of 2015

¶13

JUDGMENT (Per T.V. Nalawade, J.):

¶14

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard both the sides for final disposal.

¶15

The proceeding is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the relief of quashing of F.I.R. No.90/2014 registered with Amalner Police Station, District Jalgaon. Crime is registered for offences punishable under sections 463, 464, 468, 471, 474, 384, 385, 420, 34 etc. of Indian Penal Code.

¶16

Private complaint was filed by present respondent No.2, who is a businessman and he was a Councillor of Amalner Municipal Council. His private complaint was referred for making investigation by order dated 5-7-2014 made by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Respondent No.2 has made allegation that Rajkumar, brother of present applicant, had some how made one Hemant Bhandarkar to sell open space of CTS No.3223/B situated at Amalner and said Bhandarkar had executed sale deed without taking consent of other persons who

¶17

3 Application No.3058 of 2015

¶18

were entitled to have share in the property. It is contended that other persons from the family of Bhandarkar have filed Special Civil Suit No.37/2013 to challenge the sale deed made in favour of the wife of Rajkumar.

¶19

It is the case of respondent No.2 that as he had opposed illegal activities of the present applicant, the applicant had filed proceeding for disqualification of respondent No.2 from the post of Councillor. He has made allegation that about six months prior to the date of the complaint, Rajkumar demanded ransom of Rs.25 lakh to withdraw the proceeding which was filed for disqualification. It is his contention that amount of Rs. Two lakh was actually given. It is his contention that subsequently he had challenged the order of disqualification and stay is granted to the disqualification by this Court. It is his contention that one more application was made for disqualification by the applicant against him for extracting money from him and he had also given report against officers of the local body that they had created false lay out map of CTS No.3223/B and

¶20

4 Application No.3058 of 2015

¶21

he had intention to extract money from the officers also.

¶22

It is the contention of the respondent No.2 that the lay out plan of CTS No.3223/B which Rajkumar has been using is not genuine lay out plan and he has created false record of the lay out plan and he has committed aforesaid offences. By making allegation that the present applicant and his brother Rajkumar are demanding ransom from the respondent No.2 section 384 IPC was added in the private complaint.

¶23

Both the sides produced some record which mainly includes copies of sale deeds executed in favour of the family of present applicant by owners-Bhandarkar. Sale deed of the year 2000 shows that no number of the plot was mentioned though boundaries of the portion from CTS No.3223/B-1 were mentioned in the sale deed. However, in the subsequent sale deed of the year 2002 executed in favour of Ashok Chhajed by the owners, the number of the plot was mentioned as 19 and in the boundaries the Plot numbers like Plot Nos.18 and 20 of the aforesaid CTS were mentioned. There is record to

¶24

5 Application No.3058 of 2015

¶25

show that respondent No.2 made construction on his plot No.18 which is part of the same CTS Number. The local body had issued notice to respondent No.2 to return the original file of lay out plan of CTS No.3223/B-1 on 3-92003. Action is taken against respondent No.2 because of the illegal construction made on Plot No.18 from the CTS number.

¶26

When there is record of aforesaid nature, it is allegation of respondent No.2 that in the year 2013 false lay out plan was prepared by present applicant of aforesaid CTS number and then proceeding for disqualification was filed by making allegations of illegal construction by respondent No.2 and some reports were made against the local body that they had created false record of lay out plan subsequently to show that the Plot Nos.18 to 20 were not shown by them in the map. In fact, construction is made on these plots even by respondent No.2 and that was done prior to starting of the dispute. In any case, the open portion from the disputed CTS number was sold by making three portions of the open space and three different numbers are shown to be given to the

¶27

6 Application No.3058 of 2015

¶28

three portions of the open space. In view of these circumstances, even at this stage it cannot be said that in the year 2013 the applicants prepared false record of lay out plan. Lay out plan must have been prepared by the owner and after that the owner must have sold Plot No.19 in favour of the family of the applicant. Thus, there is no force in the allegations that false lay out plan was prepared by the applicant.

¶29

There is no force in the allegations that the applicant and his brother were blackmailing respondent No.2 and they had extracted some money also from respondent No.2. Admittedly he had started proceeding for disqualification of respondent No.2 on the ground that even when he was the Councillor he had made illegal construction by making encroachment on the plots of the applicant. Order of disqualification is made by the authority against respondent No.2 though there are contentions that this Court has granted stay to the order of disqualification. Thus, there is no force in the contentions that the applicant and his brother were trying to blackmail respondent No.2. It is will be abuse of

¶30

7 Application No.3058 of 2015

¶31

process of law if the further proceeding is allowed to continue in respect of the aforesaid allegations made by respondent No.2. In the result, the application is allowed. Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause (B). Rule is made absolute in those terms.

¶32

Sd/- Sd/- (K.L. WADANE, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)

¶33

rsl

Ashok S/O Bhavarilal Chhajed v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok S/O Bhavarilal Chhajed 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rameshwar Dadasaheb Bawle and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anant S/O Shrinivasrao Vaidya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rukhmaji S/O. Tanaji Sakhare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Harun Munaf Patel and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sageera W/O. Rasheed Shaikh and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri Govind S/O Marutirao Narangale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.