Court dismissed petitions for quashing three FIRs regarding disputed land possession. Found that petitioners used a peculiar modus operandi involving false representations and illiteracy to grab property without payment. Relief denied.
All three petitions for quashing of FIRs dismissed. Rule discharged.
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.
Cri.W.P.No. 419/12 & Ors.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 419 OF 2012
| 1] | Ramakant S/o Shripadrao Kulkarni Age: 58 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Udgir, Tal. Udgir, Dist. Latur |
|---|---|
| 2] | Suryakant S/o Madhavrao Parge Age: 50 years Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Udigr, Tal. Udgir, Dist. Latur ....Petitioners. |
| Versus | |
| 1] | The State of Maharashtra Through Superintendent of Police, Udgir |
| 2] | Ashok Dattatray Jadhav Age: 47 years, Occu: Business, R/o. Gitanagar, Nanded, Tal. & Dist. Nanded ....Respondents. |
| Mr. | A.N. Sabins, Advocate for Petitioners |
| Mrs. | D.S. Jape, APP for Respondent No. 1/State |
| Mr. | V.D. Gunale, Advocate for Respondent No.2. |
| WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 183 OF 2012 |
|
| 1] | Ramakant S/o Shripadrao Kulkarni Age: 58 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Udgir, Tal. Udgir, Dist. Latur |
| 2] | Suryakant S/o Madhavrao Parge Age: 50 years Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Udigr, Tal. Udgir, Dist. Latur ....Petitioners. |
| Versus | |
| 1] | The State of Maharashtra Through Superintendent of Police, Udgir |
Cri.W.P.No. 419/12 & Ors.
2
Mr. A.N. Sabins, Advocate for Petitioners Mrs. D.S. Jape, APP for Respondent No. 1/State Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 184 OF 2012
Mr. A.N. Sabins, Advocate for Petitioners Mrs. D.S. Jape, APP for Respondent/State Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM :T.V. NALAWADE AND
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ. DATED : 24/10/2018.
JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
Cri.W.P.No. 419/12 & Ors.
3
Cri.W.P.No. 419/12 & Ors.
4
of Ashok Jadhav in one crime that under sale deed he got possession of the land and the purchasers from petitioners tried to obstruct his possession over the land. It is contended that on one day i.e. on 10.9.2011 the petitioners and others came with tractor and those persons tried to remove his structure and they tried to take possession forcibly of his property. It is his contention that as articles like tin sheets used for preparing sheds, cabinet, cot, chairs and household articles were forcibly taken away by the petitioners and by that, they committed the offences punishable under sections 379, 395, 447, 504, 34 etc. of IPC. The private complaint was filed on 28.2.2012. Prior to that, on 14.11.2011 Mudrikabai, the owner had filed a private complaint before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udgir containing allegations against the present petitioners and even her father Atmaram Ghuge that behind her back sale deed of her share was executed in favour of present petitioners when she was in possession of the land as owner. It is contended that initially the present petitioners had contacted her also for purchasing the land, but subsequently, they did not turn up. It is contended that she learnt about the transactions between her father and the petitioners only when application for mutation was made on the basis of application made by her behalf in favour of her father. Criminal Writ Petition No. 183/2012 is filed to challenge the crime registered on the basis of her complaint which is referred by J.M.F.C. for
Cri.W.P.No. 419/12 & Ors.
5
investigation under section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code.
given by Atmaram Ghuge, father of the aforesaid lady. He has made allegations that false representation was made to him by the present petitioners and by misusing the circumstance that he is illiterate and he cannot read and writ, his signatures were obtained on sale deed. It is his contention that when some portion of land was owned by his daughter Mudrikabai, in respect of that portion also sale deed was got executed by the present petitioners from him. It is contended that initially there was agreement between petitioners on one hand and Mudrikabai and first informant Atmaram on the other. But to deceive everybody, aforesaid modus operandi was used by the petitioners. Criminal Writ petition No. 184/2012 is filed for quashing of this F.I.R.
Cri.W.P.No. 419/12 & Ors.
6
shown to be executed in the year 1993 and 1994. All these circumstances and nature of allegations show that a peculiar modus operandi was used by the petitioners to grab the property. It is the case of vendor shown on the record that no consideration was paid to him. In view of all these circumstances, this Court holds that no relief can be granted to the petitioners. In the result, all the three petitions stand dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
ssc/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition for quashing of FIRs alleging a peculiar modus operandi to grab property using false representations and illiteracy should succeed in the present circumstances.
Whether the delay in conducting mutation despite executed sale deeds and lack of consideration paid to the vendor affects the quashing of criminal proceedings.
Whether the Court should grant relief to petitioners seeking quashing of FIRs filed by third parties regarding property transactions involving family members.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramakant S/o Shripadrao Kulkarni
Suryakant S/o Madhavrao Parge
The State of Maharashtra
Ashok Dattatray Jadhav
Mudrikabai Pandharinath Kendre
Atmaram Manappa Ghuge
T.V. Nalawade
Vibha Kankanwadi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
