The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR alleging cheating and fabrication of land records regarding a sale of disputed property by the applicant.
Application under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR was rejected to avoid abuse of process of law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Appln453-18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.453 OF 2018
Rukhmaji s/o Tanaji Sakhare ... Applicant Age 80 years, Occu:Agriculture (Orig. Accused) R/o Tanaji Ngar, Taluka & Dist. Nanded
VERSUS
... Respondents
Mr. S. S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for the applicant Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar APP for respondent No.1-State. Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE AND K. L. WADANE, JJ. DATE: : 25th June, 2018.
JUDGMENT ( Per K. L. Wadane,J.):
1/5
It is stated that Tanaji Bhujanga Sakhare was the owner of ancestral land bearing Survey No. 11 situated at Asadullabad admeasuring 8 acres, out of which, 4 Acres land was sold. Tanaji Sakhare purchased another 10 acres land at village Hiwra, Taluka Vasmat, out which, 5 Acres land was entered in the name of husband of the complainant and 5 Acres land was entered in the name of the applicant. Husband of the complainant died in the year 2000 and her father-in-law Tanaji died in the year 2003.
Survey No.11 and the present applicant, without the knowledge and
2/5
Appln453-18.odt consent of the complainant and her sons, sold it out to one Balaji with intention to cheat the complainant and garb the entire property owned and possessed by the joint family. It is further alleged that the complainant and her sons are having shares in the aforesaid land, which was disposed of by the applicant fraudulently by preparing false record. With these allegations offence as referred above came to be registered against the applicant.
3/5
Appln453-18.odt
is reference of Mutation Entry No.1. However, name of the applicant is only appearing in the 7/12 extract and names of other legal heirs of Tanaji, i.e. complainant and her sons Govind, Uddhav, Shivaji and daughter Rukhmabai are recorded in Other Rights column.
No.11, the applicant sold out the said property in favour of Balaji Kale.
In fact, it appears that while recording the entry in the 7/12 extract, names of other legal heirs i.e. Govind, Uddhav, Shivaji and daughter Rukhmabai, were conveniently ignored and not shown in the column of ownership being legal heirs of Tanaji Sakhare. Thus, prima facie, it is seen that creation of false record i.e. 7/12 extract of Gat No.11 was with
an intent to garb the share of the complainant and her sons, legal representatives of deceased Dulbaji Sakhare.
4/5
Appln453-18.odt information report and other documents as referred above, prima facie, it
is seen that there is sufficient evidence against the applicant to proceed further with the criminal case. The allegations in the first information report cannot be said to be false and groundless. Hence there is no substance in the application. Criminal application is rejected.
JPC
5/5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to quash the FIR alleging false sale deed and fabrication of land records.
Whether the allegations in the frivolous FIR are prima facie groundless.
Whether sufficient evidence exists to proceed with the criminal case against the applicant.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rukhmaji s/o Tanaji Sakhare
State of Maharashtra
Laxmibai Dulbaji Sakhare
T. V. NALAWADE
K. L. WADANE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
