Allowed

Bharat Husen Lokhande v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC10 Jan 2023APPLN/1590/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad quashed FIR 25/2022 and RCS 280/2022 involving alleged robbery and money-lending offences. The court held the dispute arose from a civil sale transaction and lacked criminal ingredients, applying State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lala.

What did the court decide?

FIR no. 25/2022 and R.C.C. No. 280/2022 for offences under Sections 392, 504, 506, 507 IPC and Section 39 of MMLRA 2014 are quashed and set aside.

Bharat Husen Lokhande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

950.APPLN.1590.2022.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1590 OF 2022

¶4

BHARAT HUSEN LOKHANDE

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶7

...

¶8

Mr. M. A. Jahagirdar Shaikh, Advocate for the
Applicant.

¶9

Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, APP, for the Respondent – State.
Mr. D.R. Adhav, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

¶10

...

¶11

CORAM:SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI &
R.M. JOSHI, JJ

¶12

DATE:JANUARY 10, 2023

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

1.At the outset, learned Counsel for the

¶15

Applicant seeks leave to amend the prayer clause ‘B’.
Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

¶16

2.With consent, heard finally at the stage of
admission.

¶17

3.This is an application under Section 482 of

¶18

Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR no. 25/2022 registered with
Rahata Police Station and R.C.C. No. 280/2022 for the
offences punishable under Sections 392, 504, 506 and
507 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 39 of the
Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 (for
short ‘Act of 2014’).

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

Malani

¶21

950.APPLN.1590.2022.doc

¶22

4.We have perused the record and considered the
submissions advanced by learned Counsel appearing for
respective parties.

¶23

5.The aforesaid crime was registered pursuant to
the first information report lodged by Respondent No.
2. The Respondent No. 2 was the owner of land under Gut
No. 101 of village Nandur Khandala. The applicant
entered into a sale transaction on 14.12.2020
whereunder he sold the said land to the applicant
herein for total consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The
Respondent No. 2 has alleged that his wife had to
undergo kidney operation and due to financial
constraints he borrowed Rs. 3,00,000/- from the
applicant herein. Respondent No.2 agreed to pay the
said amount with interest. Respondent No.2 has alleged
that he had executed sale deed dated 14.12.2020 in
favour of the applicant only as security. Respondent
No. 2 alleged that the applicant refused to accept an
amount of Rs. 6,60,000/- offered by him towards
repayment of the interest component and abused and
threatened him. Based on these allegations, the
aforestated crime has been registered against the

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

Malani

¶26

950.APPLN.1590.2022.doc

¶27

applicant.

¶28

6.The records reveal that the Respondent No. 1
had executed a sale deed in favour of the applicant and
the said sale deed was duly registered before the Sub-
Registrar. It is not in dispute that the Respondent No.
2 has not filed a suit for cancellation of the said
sale deed, but the mother of Respondent no.2 has filed
a suit claiming right of preemption. It is also not in
dispute that on the basis of sale deed in question,
land has been mutated in the name of the Applicant.
These facts and circumstances would reveal that
Respondent No. 2 has given a colour of criminal
wrongdoing to a dispute which is essentially of civil
nature. An offence under Section 392 has been
registered against the applicant when there is
absolutely no material to substantiate charge of theft
much less robbery. The allegations leveled in the FIR

¶29

as well as material collected in the course of
investigation, even if accepted at its face value and
in entirety, does not constitute offence under Section

¶30

392 of IPC or 39 of the Act of 2014. The present case
is, therefore, squarely covered by illustration (1) &
(3) in the case ofState of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lala,

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

Malani

¶33

950.APPLN.1590.2022.doc

¶34

reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. Hence, continuance of
criminal proceeding against the applicant will be abuse
of the process of law.

¶35

7.In the circumstances, the application is
allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’. Consequently,
FIR no. 25/2022 registered with Rahata Police Station
and R.C.C. No. 280/2022 for the offences punishable
under Sections 392, 504, 506 and 507 of the Indian

¶36

Penal Code and Section 39 of the Maharashtra Money
Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, are hereby quashed and
set aside.

¶37

(R.M. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J)

¶38

Page 4 of 4

¶39

Malani

Bharat Husen Lokhande v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Husen Lokhande v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramraje S/O. Sidling Chandane and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jalindar Narayan Ubhedal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sayyed Umair Pasha S/O. Abdul Quadar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Raosaheb Vikram Latpate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sheshnarayan Rajanna Katkuri Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sadashiv S/O. Jaywant Farande Vs the State of Maharashtra