This is a Criminal Writ Petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered for offences of cheating, forgery, and cheating punishable under IPC sections 420, 465, 468, 471 read with section 34 based on false land record entries.
Petition dismissed, interim relief vacated and 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.
1
943 Cri. Writ Petition 24 of 2015.odt
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 24 OF 2015
Balasaheb Arjun Badade, Age: 57 years, Occ: Service, R/o Revenue Colony, Kopargaon, Taluka Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar. ... PETITIONER
V E R S U S
Mr. Nitin B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs. D. S. Jape, APP for Respondent No.1 / State. Mr. A. N. Nagorgoje, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE &
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.
DATE : 26th October, 2018.
2
943 Cri. Writ Petition 24 of 2015.odt
JUDGMENT: ( Per T. V. Nalawade, J. )
. The proceeding is filed for relief of quashing of FIR No.2 of 2014, registered with Rahata Police Station, District Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3 The crime is registered on the basis of report given by Respondent No.2, Anil Sadaphal. Present Petitioner was working as Talathi of village Rahata. The first informant has made allegations that false record like sale-deeds is created by Bhausaheb in respect of many properties and particulars of the offence committed is as under:
64.25 square meter in Survey No.1136 and this
land belongs to the father of the first informant and his uncle Namdeo Sadaphal. Bhausaheb created
false sale-deed showing that the father of the first
informant and his uncle have sold the property to
3
943 Cri. Writ Petition 24 of 2015.odt
him and got entered his name in the property. As it was open space, nobody noticed this mischief.
ii) The land bearing Survey No.29/1A+1B/2/2 admeasuring 20 Ares was standing in the name of the uncle of first informant, Namdeo and by forging the signature of uncle, Bhausaheb gave application to the Talathi and got entered the property in his name.
iii) Survey No.29/1A+1B/2/2 admeasuring 25 Ares was standing in the name of another uncle Sopan Sadaphal and Bhausaheb forged his signature and by giving application to Talathi, got entered this portion also in his name.
iv) Survey No.29/1A/1B/2/1 admeasuring 15 Ares was standing in the name of aunt, Manisha Sadaphal, but by forging the signature of Manisha, Bhausaheb created false sale-deed and got entered his name in the land and for that he had even created false seal of Sub-Registrar appointed
4
943 Cri. Writ Petition 24 of 2015.odt
under the Indian Registration Act.
4 Allegations are made that the present Petitioner, Talathi did not follow the procedure and by joining hands with Bhausaheb Sadaphal, he entered the aforesaid properties in the name of Bhausaheb. It is contended that only in the year 2011 when record was collected, it was realized that in the year 1996 and 1997 Bhausaheb got entered his name in the record of aforesaid properties by joining hands with the present Petitioner.
5 There is a record like decision given by Sub-Divisional Officer, in a proceeding which was filed to challenge the entries made
in favour of Bhausaheb and the decision shows that the SubDivisional Officer observed that proper procedure was not followed and even without verifying anything, Talathi had made entries. Aforesaid main Accused was advocate and so the revenue officer had given directions to take criminal action against all of them.
6 The learned counsel for Petitioner submitted that at the
most, it can be said that the present Petitioner acted negligently, but it cannot be said that he committed the crime by making entries of
5
943 Cri. Writ Petition 24 of 2015.odt
mutation. The learned counsel placed reliance on some observations made by the Apex Court in the case reported as 2014 AIR SCW 3810 (Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another) and submitted that FIR needs to be quashed. This submission is not at all acceptable. There are statements of aforesaid owners showing that they never sold the property to Accused, Bhausaheb. There is no record showing that notices were published or issued before making entries in the record of rights in favour of Bhausaheb. Thus, it cannot be said that there is no material against the present Petitioner. In the result, the following order is passed:
O R D E R
III. Rule is discharged.
[ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ] [ T. V. NALAWADE, J. ]
ndm
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Writ Petition filed for quashing of FIR regarding alleged forgery and false record entries by a Talathi should be allowed.
Whether the petitioner's alleged negligence amounts to the crime of forgery necessitating criminal liability.
Whether the observations in Rishipal Singh justify quashing the FIR in these facts without publishing notices.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶37
2014 AIR SCW 3810 · Who else cites this
Balasaheb Arjun Badade
State of Maharashtra
Anil Balasaheb Sadaphal
T. V. Nalawade
Vibha Kankanwadi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
