Meena Wd/O Harshad Shah and 2 Another vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Ps, in Charge, Tahasil P.S. Nagpur

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:5885-DB

¶2

1 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 736 OF 2024

¶5

1.	Meena wd/o Harshad Shah,
	Aged 66 years, Occ. Homemaker,
	R/o Flat No. 15, Ashish Tower,
	Telephone Exchange Square, C.A.
	Road, Nagpur.
2.	Amar s/o Harshad Shah,
	Aged 48 years, Occ. Business,
	R/o. Flat No. 15, Ashish Tower,
	Telephone Exchange Square, C.A.
	Road, Nagpur.
3.	Chetan s/o Harshad Shah,
	Aged 42 years, Occ. Business,
	R/o. Flat No. 15, Ashish Tower,
	Telephone Exchange Square, C.A.
	Road, Nagpur.	APPLICANTS
	Versus
1.	State of Maharashtra, Thr. Police Station In charge, Tahsil
	Police Station, Nagpur.
2.	Mr. Nilesh Amarchand Mehta,
	Aged 54 years, R/o. House No.
	1062, Jain Ratna Amarchand, Mehta
	Marg, Bhaji Mandi, Itwari, Pothane
	Tehsil, Nagpur.	NON-APPLICANTS

¶6

WITH

¶7

2 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶8

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 720 OF 2024

¶9

Anil s/o Ratiram Fulzele, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Plot No. 76, Tapasya, Beldar Nagar, Dighori, Narsala Road, Narsala, Nagpur - 440 034.

¶10

APPLICANT

¶11

Versus

¶12

State of Maharashtra, Thr. Police Station Officer, Police Station Tahsil, Nagpur.

¶13

Mr. Nilesh Amarchand Mehta, R/o. House No. 1062, Jain Ratna Amarchand, Mehta Marg, Bhaji Mandi, Itwari, Pothane Tehsil, Nagpur.

NON-APPLICANTS

APL NO. 736/2024

Mr. Shashank Manohar, Advocate a/w Mr. Rohan Malviya, Advocate for the Applicants.

¶18

Mr. Neeraj Jawade, APP for the Non-applicant No.1 /State. Mr. Anil Mardikar, Senior Advocate a/b Mr. C.B. Barve, Advocate for the Non-applicant No.2.

¶19

APL NO. 720/2024

¶20

Mr. Rohan Deo, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Neeraj Jawade, APP for the Non-applicant No.1 /State. Mr. Anil Mardikar, Senior Advocate a/b Mr. C.B. Barve, Advocate for the Non-applicant No.2.

¶21

¶22

3 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶23

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J. RESERVED ON : 09^th APRIL, 2026. PRONOUNCED ON : 16^th APRIL, 2026.

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

¶25

Heard.

¶26

ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learned

¶27

Counsel for the respective parties.

¶28

Both these Applications are for quashing of the First Information Report (“FIR” for short) in connection with Crime No.999/2023 registered with Police Station Tahsil, District Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 167, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing R.C.C. No.5110/2025.

¶29

The Applicants namely Meena Harshad Shah, Amar Harshad Shah and Chetan Harshad Shah preferred an Application bearing Criminal Application (APL) No. 736/2024, whereas Applicant Anil Ratiram Fulzele who was serving in a

¶30

4 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶31

Land Records Office preferred an Application bearing Criminal Application (APL) No. 720/2024.

¶32

House property Nos. 1063, 1063A, 1063B and 1063C having Nazul Sheet No.159 and City Survey Nos. 560 and 561 was purchased by deceased Harshad Amrutlal Shah in the year 1999 from Prashant Jejani and Kamlesh Shah and four houses were constructed on City Survey Nos.560 and 561 which were owned by different owners. There was 10 feet lane (open space) of Government between City Survey Nos. 560 and 561. Deceased Harshad Shah and the Applicants demolished old houses and constructed a building. The FIR came to be lodged against the present Applicants and the other co-accused on the basis of the report lodged by the Non-applicant No.2/Nilesh Amarchand Mehta.

¶33

As per his allegations the said construction carried out by the Applicants and deceased Harshad Shah was not as per the sanctioned plan. Therefore, he filed Civil Suit bearing R.C.S. No.52/2015 in Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur for injunction, wherein ad interim injunction was granted. The complaint was also made to the Municipal

¶34

5 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶35

Corporation. The Junior Engineer of Nagpur Municipal Corporation, inspected the premises and observed encroachment on Government premises. Accordingly, notices were issued to deceased Harshad Shah and Applicants for removal of the illegal construction. As per the allegations on 11.09.2018, the Applicants applied to the City Survey Office for measurement of the plots. On this application, the co-accused i.e. the Applicant in Criminal Application (APL) No.720/2024 i.e. Anil Ratiram Fulzele issued notices to the concerned persons but the notices were not given to the persons affected by the construction like neighbours etc., were shown to be given to the other persons.

¶36

The measurement was made in presence of the persons who were not concerned. For inspection of the property co-accused Sunil Gaikwad was named and the said co-accused had without verification of the details prepared a report. The report indicated that, the said 36.125 sq.mtr., road was in “User Possession” i.e. of the present Applicants. On the basis of the said report of the co-accused Sunil Gaikwad, the Applicants applied to the Superintendent of Land Records to correct the

¶37

6 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶38

Government records. The Superintendent of Land Records therefore issued a letter to the Applicant Anil Fuleze who was the City Survey Officer (Zone-1). The said Anil Fulzele thereafter issued notices to the neighbours and the present Complainant. In fact these notices were not issued and some of the persons to whom the notices were issued were already dead. As per the contention of the Complainant he had never received a notice and his signature in fact was forged and inspection report prepared by the Applicant Anil Fulzele, wherein it was mentioned that measurement of City Survey No.560 was correct, however, as regards City Survey No. 561 the area of road 36.125 sq.mtr., was added by the Applicant Anil Fulzele.

¶39

The entire exercise was done without calling the concerned persons who were affected by the measurement. The signatures which are on the notices are forged one. After this measurement, the Applicant Anil Fulzele sent the report to the Superintendent of Land Records and Superintendent of Land Records passed an order of enquiry under Section 20(1) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and thereafter Applicant Anil Fulzele again issued notices to the concerned

¶40

7 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶41

persons and Government bodies such as Nazul Department, Nagpur Improvement Trust and Nagpur Municipal Corporation. These departments have not received the said notices and that every other concerned persons mentioned has also not received the said notices. Spot inspection was conducted and the said Applicant Anil Fulzele passed an order on 08.11.2019 and the entire area of road i.e. 36.125 sq.mtr., was added in City Survey No. 561 and the area was shown to be 316.5 sq.mtr. On the basis of the same, the amalgamated map of City Survey Nos. 560 and 561 was made by the Town Planning Department of NMC. On receiving the said complaint, the Investigating Agency registered the crime.

¶42

After registration of the crime the wheels of the investigation started rotating. During investigation the Investigating Officer has recorded the relevant statements of witnesses and after completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet against the present Applicants.

¶43

Heard Mr. Manohar, learned Counsel for the Applicants in Criminal Application (APL) No. 736/2024, who submitted that on going through the entire facts which are

¶44

8 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶45

narrated in the FIR and which came forward during the investigation sufficiently shows that, the dispute between the present Applicants and the Non-applicant No.2 is of a civil nature.

¶46

He invited my attention towards the extract of Enquiry Register of the year 1970 which would reveal that the plot area of City Survey No. 561 is 303.2 sq.mtr. Sale deeds through which the Applicants have acquired their rights also mentioned the same Plot area i.e. 303.2 sq.mtr. Thus, it is apparent that, the Complainant has made a false statement as to the area of said Plot. He submitted that, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that, any offence is committed by the present Applicants. Even accepting the allegations as it is that they have encroached upon the Government land, no criminal offence is made out against the present Applicants as the dispute could be in the nature of civil transaction.

¶47

He submitted that, area of Plot bearing City Survey No. 562 was originally 147.53 sq.mtr., but was then changed to 102.2 sq.mtr. Then the owners of the City Survey No. 562 challenged the order before the competent authority and the

¶48

9 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶49

area of the City Survey No. 562 was finalized to 126.00 sq.mtr., in the year 1989. The sale deeds through which the Complainant had acquired his title also reveal the Plot area of the City Survey No. 562 to be 126.00 sq.mtr., only. Thus, the correction deeds executed by the Complainant which was not in relation to the area of Plot/City Survey No. 562.

¶50

He further submitted that, the Assistant Director, Town Planning Department, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur, has vide order dated 08.07.2020 amalgamated City Survey Nos. 560 and 561 vide order No. MaNaPaNa/NaRV/22/ Akatrikaran. Thus, the allegations as to the land between the City Survey Nos. 560 and 561 having a public road is false. The open space is a part of Plot area of City Survey No. 561 and there is no record as to the 10 feet lane being Government land or road. Sale deeds would reveal that the 10 feet lane between the City Survey Nos. 560 and 561 is an internal arrangement between the Applicants to allow Mr. Chetan Shah to access his part of the property. He further submitted that, Complainant has made allegations as to non-compliance of the statutory rules of service of notice to the concerned parties and procedure

¶51

10 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶52

followed by without Government Officers. However, this is not substantiated by any material. As far as the forgery of the signature is concerned, there is no specific allegation that which of the accused has committed the said forgery i.e. the forged signatures of the dead persons. Thus, he submitted that, unless and until the exact act of forgery was committed by whom is not established by the prosecution at prima facie no offence would be made out against the present Applicants.

¶53

He invited my attention towards the various provisions i.e. offence under Sections 420, 465, 467 and 468 of IPC and submitted that none of the offences are made out against the present Applicants. He also invited my attention towards various documents on record and submitted that even accepting the allegations as it is, it would be a civil dispute between the parties and no criminal offence is made out against the present Applicants. He further invited my attention towards the fact that, the FIR came to be registered in view of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) in Cri.M.A. No. 3479/2022. Subsequent to that, the

¶54

11 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶55

Complainant has filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., bearing Misc.Cri.No. 1653/2023, the same was withdrawn by the Applicants. Pendency of previous application bearing Cri.M.A. No. 3479/2022 was not mentioned in subsequent application.

¶56

Mr. Manohar, learned Counsel, has placed reliance on Ravichandran Vs. State by Dy. Superintendent of Police, Madras, 2010 CRI.L.J. 2879; Sherimon Vs. State of Kerala, 2012 CRI.L.J. 988; Jibrial Diwan Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1997 SC 3424; Deepak Gaba & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2023) SCC 423 and Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1950 .

¶57

Mr. Deo, learned Counsel for the Applicant in Criminal Application (APL) No. 720/2024, submitted that as far as Applicant Anil Fulzele is concerned, who was serving as an employee of the Land Records Office. His role is only to the extent that he has issued notices to all the concerned parties for measurement of land on 05.10.2019 and also submitted his report to the office of Superintendent of Land Records and the Superintendent of Land Records directed the Applicant to

¶58

12 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶59

enquire into the matter and pass an appropriate orders. The notices are to the extent that, they were called to remain present for spot inspection on 30.10.2019. There is no reason for the Applicant to have a knowledge that, some of the persons to whom he has issued the notices are already dead. As per the procedure he has issued the notices and thereafter the spot inspection was carried out.

¶60

He submitted that, property bearing City Survey No. 561 was originally owned by late Shri Bhogilal Parekh vide registered sale deeds dated 03.07.1941 and 30.09.1958 of area admeasuring 303.2 sq.mtr. The Records of Enquiry Register City Survey reveals the mutation of property in the year 1971 and the area shown to be 303.2 sq.mtr. After the sale deed the property was transferred in the name of Ramesh Bhogilal Parekh. Said Ramesh Bhogilal Parekh sold the said land i.e. City Survey No. 561 to M/s Arihant Developers vide registered sale deed dated 18.08.1998. City Survey No. 561 was sold by M/s Arihant Developers in 4 parts to the Applicants in Criminal Application (APL) No. 736/2024 vide registered sale deeds. M/s Arihant Developers sold area admeasuring 66.357 sq.mtr., to

¶61

13 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶62

Harshad Shah who is dead vide sale deed dated 16.06.1999. The area admeasuring 81.03 sq.mtr., was sold to Meena Shah vide sale deed dated 16.06.1999 vide sale deed No. 2540. The area admeasuring 87.97 sq.mtr., was sold to Amar Shah vide sale deed dated 16.06.1999 by M/s Arihant Developers and M/s Arihant Developers sold area admeasuring 67.56 sq.mtr., to Chetan Shah vide sale deed dated 16.06.1999 out of City Survey No. 561. The another City Survey No. 562 was originally owned by one Santosh Radke and Dharmaraj Radke. They had purchased the same vide sale deed dated 12.10.1965 admeasuring 1588 sq.ft. The property bearing City Survey No. 562 was sold to Smt. Savitaben Mehta, Smt. Swarupaben Mehta and Smt. Kurnudben Mehta in the year 1989 vide sale deed bearing No. 4480/1989.

¶63

The extract of the Enquiry Register of the land Records shows the area of the City Survey No. 562 was decreased from 147.53 sq.mtr., to 102.2 sq.mtr., vide order dated 18.09.1971. Then owners of the City Survey No. 562 vide order dated 19.12.1990 corrected the area from 102.2 sq.mtr., to 126.00 sq.mtr. in proceedings bearing No.BND/54/57/89-90.

¶64

14 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶65

The owners of the property bearing City Survey No. 562 transferred their shares to Shri Parsh Mehta vide registered gift deeds bearing Nos. 613/1989, 614/1989 and 615/1989. Thereafter the property was mortgaged and sold in auction to M/s Gondwana Construction Private Limited vide sale letter bearing No. 1154/2007 dated 27.02.2007. M/s Gondwana Construction Private Limited sold the second floor and third floor of the building on the City Survey No. 562 to the Complainant Nilesh Mehta vide sale deed bearing No. 5252/2008 on 30.09.2008. The ground floor and first floor on the City Survey No. 562 was sold to Smt. Neeta Manish Mehta vide registered sale deed dated 25.09.2009. The correction deed was executed between Smt. Neeta Mehta and M/s. Gondwana Construction Private Limited on 19.04.2023, whereby the area of the City Survey No. 562 has been increased from 126 sq.mtr., to 147 sq.mtr. Thus, he submitted that, both the sale deeds referred above specifically mentioned the Plot area to be 126.00 sq.mtr. The area shown in the measurement carried out on the application of the Non-applicant No.2 also shows the area of City Survey No.562 to be 126.00 sq.mtr.

¶66

15 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶67

He further submitted that, as far as the present Applicant is concerned, whose role is only to the extent that he has issued the notices and passed the order in view of the directions given by the Superintendent of Land Records. He has followed the rules for measurement, demarcation and spot inspection to the letter and spirit as prescribed by the Government of Maharashtra. He submitted that, the Applicant was directed by the Superintendent of Land Records to submit the report and after issuance of notice, the Applicant has submitted the report. The Non-applicant No.2 instead of challenging the decision of Superintendent of Land Records, has decided to involve the present Applicant and the other co-accused in a criminal case on false and frivolous allegations.

¶68

He submitted that, as far as the allegations levelled against the present Applicant of preparing the false report and alienating the City Survey No. 561, is not substantiated by any investigation material. In fact, the Applicant has conducted spot inspection, recorded the statements of the other Applicants as well as recorded the statements of the relevant persons and thereafter submitted the report. It is alleged that, notices for

¶69

16 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶70

measurement and demarcation were served to the persons who have been expired long back. Admittedly, the Applicant himself has not served the notices but these notices are served through the other employees, and therefore, there is no reason for him to have a knowledge about the death of some of the persons who were the adjoining owners. He submitted that, even accepting the allegations as it is, there is nothing on record to show that it was the present Applicant who has forged the signatures of the persons who are dead, and therefor, the Application deserves to be allowed.

¶71

Per contra, Mr. Jawade, learned APP strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that on going through the entire investigation papers it is clear that, Applicant Anil Fulzele has issued the notices and without verifying whether the concerned persons to whom he has issued the notices were served with the notices, carried out the spot inspection and forged documents were prepared. His involvement reveals from the various statements of the witnesses, and therefore, the Application deserves to be rejected.

¶72

17 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶73

Per contra, Mr. Mardikar, leaned Senior Counsel for the Non-applicant No.2 submitted that, the forgery at the hands of the present Applicant reveals as notices which are issued by the present Applicant to various persons and the statements of the legal heirs of the said persons shows the said persons were dead long back. The notice was issued on 27.09.2019 to Complainant Nilesh Amarchand Mehta and others. The death certificates which are collected during the investigation shows that Ramchandra Chaturbhujji Sewak who is at serial No.5 shown to be signed was dead long back on 24.11.1997, Shrikant Dwarkaprasad Kabra was shown at serial No.7 and his death certificate shows that he died on 14.12.2004, one Dwarkaprasad Kabra also died on 18.05.2017, Mangilal Motilal Jain who is at serial No.10 also died on 30.10.1976, Hemlata Vijaykumar Mahendra shown at serial No.11 also reported to be dead on 26.11.2018 and Harshad Amritlal Shah died on 04.10.2019. The statements of the legal heirs of these persons namely Durgaprasad Ramchandra Sewak, Smt. Shilpi Manish Mahendra, Govind Shrikant Kabra and Rakesh Subhashchandra Madan shows that, they have never received any notices to remain present for the said measurement.

¶74

18 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶75

He submitted that, accused Nos. 1 to 3 i.e. Meena Harshad Shah, Amar Harshad Shah, Chetan Harshad Shah and late Harshad Shah had applied to NMC for sanction of building plan for their proposed building and NMC has sanctioned their building plan specifically for the residential use only. But the Applicants have contravened the same and constructed illegal commercial building in the residential zone without any sanction. When this fact came to the knowledge of NMC, demolition notice was issued to the Applicants.

¶76

It is further submitted by him that, the Complainant came to know that the Applicants also made an application with the City Survey for the measurement of the land bearing City Survey Nos. 560 and 561, Nazul Sheet No.159 and given the date for inspection on 05.10.2019. The deceased Harshad Amrutlal Shah was shown to be present on the site, whereas he was already died on 04.10.2019. The death of said Harshad Shah is not disputed. Similarly, various persons who were issued notices were already dead but their signatures are shown on the said notices. Thus, the Applicants have committed a forgery on the basis of the forged documents and further proceedings were

¶77

19 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶78

completed by the Department of City Survey Office. Thus, the present Applicants are the beneficiaries due to the said forgery.

¶79

He has invited my attention towards the various maps as well as various statements of the witnesses and the notices which were issued for remaining present for the spot inspection and submitted that these documents clearly shows that on the basis of the forged documents the Applicants have amalgamated the plots and encroached over the Government land. Thus, considering the prima facie material against the present Applicants, showing their involvement not only in the forgery of the documents but grabbing the Government property, and therefore, the Application deserves to be rejected.

¶80

In support of his contention, he placed reliance on Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh & Ors., (2023) 18 SCC 399; Dharambeer Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., (2025) 1 SCC 392 and Kathyayini Vs. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1428 .

¶81

I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Applicants as well as learned APP and

¶82

20 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶83

learned Senior Counsel for the Non-applicant No.2 and the various decisions relied upon by them.

¶84

The crime came to be registered on the basis of the report lodged by the Non-applicant No.2 on an allegation that, the Applicants have conspired with the co-accused who are the officials of the Land Records Office and got mutated space of a public road of width of 10 feet situated within City Survey Nos. 560 and 561 of Nazul Sheet No.159 in the name of the present Applicants in Criminal Application (APL) No. 736/2024. It is alleged that, by hatching conspiracy by all the accused the said act was done and illegal construction was carried out by the Applicants in Criminal Application (APL) No. 736/2024 by amalgamating Plots of City Survey Nos. 560 and 561. It is further alleged that, they have forged the signatures of various persons including the Non-applicant No.2 by showing that notices for measurement were issued. Thus, they have committed an offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.

¶85

On going through the record it reveals that, the property bearing City Survey No. 561 was originally owned by

¶86

21 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶87

late Shri Bhogilal Parekh admeasuring 303.2 sq.mtr. The extract of Enquiry Register of City Survey reveals the mutation of the said City Survey No.561 admeasuring 303.2 sq.mtr., was recorded in the year 1971. The said property was transferred in the name of Shri Ramesh Bhogilal Parekh by all the legal heirs through registered relinquishment deed dated 01.09.1982. Thereafter said Ramesh Bhogilal Pareksh sold the said land City Survey No.561 to M/s Arihant Developers vide registered deed dated 18.08.1998. The said City Survey No.561 was sold by M/s Arihant Developers in 4 parts to the Applicants namely Harshad Shah, Meena Shah, Amar Harshad Shah and Chetan Harshad Shah. M/s Arihant Developers executed a sale deed of area admeasuring 66.357 sq.mtr., to Harshad Shah vide sale deed dated 16.06.1999, area of 81.03 sq.mtr., in favour of Meena Shah vide sale deed dated 16.06.1999, area of 87.97 sq.mtr., to Amar Shah vide sale deed dated 16.06.1999 and area of 67.56 sq.mtr., to Chetan Shah vide sale deed dated 16.06.1999. All the said sale deeds are filed on record.

¶88

Similarly, City Survey No.562 was originally owned by Santosh Radke and Dharmaraj Radke, which they have

¶89

22 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶90

purchased vide sale deed dated 12.10.1965. It was sold to Smt. Savitaben Mehta, Smt. Swarupaben Mehta and Smt. Kurnudben Mehta in 1989. The extract of Enquiry Register shows City Survey No.562 was decreased from 147.53 sq.mtr., to 102.2 sq.mtr. Then the owners of the City Survey No. 562 by obtaining the order corrected the area from 102.2 sq.mtr., to 126.00 sq.mtr., in a proceeding bearing No. BND/54/57/89-90. The property bearing City Survey No. 562 was by way of gift deeds transferred to Shri Parsh Mehta and thereafter the said property was mortgaged and sold in auction to M/s Gondwana Construction Private Limited vide letter dated 27.02.2007. M/s Gondwana Construction Private Limited sold the second floor and third floor of the building on the City Survey No.562 to Mr. Nilesh Mehta i.e. Non-applicant No.2 vide sale deed dated 30.09.2008, whereas the ground floor and first floor on the City Survey No.562 was sold to Smt. Neeta Manish Mehta. Subsequently, the correction deed was executed and City Survey No. 562 has been increased from 126 sq.mtr., to 147 sq.mtr. During investigation it further revealed that, the present Applicants in Criminal Application (APL) No. 736/2024 applied for a measurement. Applicant Anil Fuzele who was serving in

¶91

23 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶92

City Survey Office issued the notices in his official capacity and the land was measured and thereafter by order of the competent authority it was amalgamated.

¶93

It is alleged that, the present Applicants have not constructed the building on Survey Nos. 560 and 561 as per the sanctioned plan, and therefore, the Non-applicant No.2 has preferred the suit for injunction. There is no dispute that, suit bearing R.C.S. No.52/2015 was preferred by the Non-applicant No.2 against one Neeta Manish Mehta and the present Applicants contending that they are the lawful owners and are in peaceful possession of House No.1062 situated on Sheet No.159. It was alleged by them that, the defendants have purchased the property i.e. House Nos.1063, 1063A, 1063B and 1063C from M/s Arihant Developers which was situated towards the north portion of the house of said Non-applicant No.2 and they have constructed without leaving a space to have access and construction was on the open space of 10 feet which is a Government land. The interim injunction was granted in favour of the Non-applicant No.2.

¶94

24 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶95

The property card of City Survey No. 562 having Sheet No. 159 shows the area shown was 126 sq.mtr. The sale deed executed in favour of the Non-applicant No.2 also shows the area as 126 sq.mtr. The four sale deeds which are on record shows that, the portions which are mentioned earlier were owned by the Applicants in Criminal Application (APL) No. 736/2024. As per the Applicants, the said Nazul Sheet No.159 and City Survey Nos. 560 and 561 is admeasuring 651 sq.mtr., and thereby they applied for amalgamation of both the City Surveys. The said amalgamation order was passed on 08.07.2020 by the Town Planning Department of Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur. Prior to that, the Applicants in Criminal Application (APL) No. 736/2024 alongwith deceased Harhasd Amrutlal Shah filed an application on 19.11.2018 for measurement of City Survey No.561. As per their contentions City Survey No.561 is 303.02 sq.mtr., whereas as per the vahivat it is 316.09 sq.mtr.

¶96

Accordingly, notices were issued by the another Applicant Anil Fulzele who was working in said office dated 27.09.2019. On the back portion of the said notice, the names

¶97

25 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶98

of Harshad Amrutlal Shah, Meena Harshad Mehta and Amar Harshad Mehta are mentioned. Similarly, the names of Chetan Harshad Shah, one Ramchandra Chaturbhuj Sewak, Rakesh Subhashchandra Madan, Shrikant Dwarkaprasad Kabra, Sagarmal Jugalkishor Agrawal, Nilesh Amarchand Mehta, Mangilal Motilal Jain, Smt. Hemlata Vijaykumar Mahendra are mentioned. Out of that, the signatures of Harshad Amrutlal Shah, Meena Harshad Mehta and Amar Harshad Mehta are not appearing. Thereafter the enquiry was conducted after visiting the spot inspection and report was submitted by Applicant Anil Fulzele stating that City Survey Nos. 560 and 561 are admeasuring 348.4 and 303.2 sq.mtr., respectively. It is subsequently mentioned in the said report, as follows.

¶99

“ewG uxj Hkweiku ;kstusrhy lnks"k dk;ZokgheqGs {ks=QGke/;s rQkor fuekZ.k >kyh vlY;keqGs o o u-Hkw-Ø- 561 o 560 P;k e/;s vlysyh eksdGh tkxk fu”phr u-Hkw-Ø z - 561 P;k ekydhph vkgs fdaok ukgh ? ;kckcr [kk=h dj.kslkBh lnj izdj.kkr ojhy uewn feGdrh laca/kkus egkjk"Vª tehu eglwy vf/kuh;e 1966 ps dye 20¼2½ uqlkj QsjpkSd”kh gksÅu fu.kZ; ?ks.ks vko”;d vkgs] vls ;k dk;kZy;kps uez er vkgs-”

¶100

Thus, it is apparently that, Applicant Anil Fulzele specifically stated that re-enquiry is required considering the

¶101

26 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶102

difference in the area. After this report, the Superintendent of Land Records passed an order observing the report of the Applicant Anil Fulzele and opined as under.

¶103

“mijksDr ckchpk fopkj djrk] ekStk ukxiwj ;sFkhy f”kV Øekad 159 ] uxj Hkwekiu Øekad 560 o 561 rlsp lnjgq uxj Hkwekiu Øekadke/;s vlysyh eksdGh tkxk ;k feGdrhckcr uxj Hkwekiu vf/kdkjh Ø- 1 ] ukxiwj ;kauh lknj dsysY;k lanfHkZ; Ø- 2 ps izLrkokps vuq"kaxkus egkjk"Vª tehu eglwy vf/kfu;e] 1966 ps dey 20¼2½ vUo;s dk;Zokgh dj.ksdjhrk ijokuxh ns.ks mphr gksbZy vls eyk okVrs- lcc ekStk ukxiwj ;sFkhy f’kV Øekad 159] uxj Hkwekiu Øekad 560 o 561 rlsp lnjgq uxj Hkwekiu Øekadke/;s vlysyh eksdGh tkxk ;k feGdrhckcr egkjk"Vª tehu eglwy vf/kfu;e] 1966 ps dye 20¼2½ vUo;s Qsj gDd pkSd’kh d:u ;ksX; rks fu.kZ; ikjhr dj.;kph uxj Hkwekiu vf/kdkjh Ø- 1 ] ukxiwj ;kauk ijokuxh ns.;kr ;srs vkgsuxj Hkqekiu vf/kdkjh Ø- 1 ukxiwj ;kauh laca/khr blekaps@ /kkjdkadMhy ekydh gDdkckcrps eqG nLr,sot] bZR;knhaps rlsp izR;{k rkck ofgokV] bZR;knhaph rikl.kh d:u loZ fgrlaca/khrkauk lquko.khph la/kh iznku d:u fo”ks’kr% u>wy foHkkxkl] egkuxjikfydk ukxiwj] ukxiwj lq/kkj izU;kl ukxiwj] bZR;knhauk rlsp loZ pkSd”kh d:u “kklukps fgrkl ck/kk u ;srk fu;ekuqlkj Qsj gDd pkSd”kh dj.;kph dk;Zokgh djkoh- o vuqikyu vgoky bdMhy dk;kZy;kl fjrlj lknj djkok- ”

¶104

As noted earlier that, back portion of the notice issued on 27.09.2019 there are no signatures of Harshad Amrutlal Shah, Meena Harshad Mehta and Amar Harshad Mehta. It is specifically alleged that, the signatures of Shrikant

¶105

27 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶106

Dwarkaprasad Kabra, Mangilal Motilal Jain, Smt. Hemlata Vijaykumar Mahendra and Ramchandra Chaturbhujji Sewak are appearing on the back portion of the said notice dated 27.09.2019, whereas these persons died long back. Similarly, Harshad Amrutlal Shah died on 04.10.2019. In fact on perusal of the said document it reveals that Harshad Amrutlal Shah’s signature is not appearing and it is specifically mentioned that his signature is on the first page but the first page also nowhere shows his signature. It is specifically contended by the Applicant Anil Fulzele that, his role is only to the extent of issuing the notices and he is not the person who served the notices, and therefore, he has no knowledge as to the service of said notices and whether the persons are alive or dead. Admittedly, the statements of relatives of these persons shows that, they died long back. The property card issued subsequently to the issuance of notice also shows that City Survey No. 561 having Nazul sheet No.159 is admeasuring 303.2 sq.mtr., and City Survey No. 560 is admeasuring 348.4 sq.mtr. All the transactions which were done in respect of the said properties are appearing in a property card. Admittedly, the application for seeking measurement of both the lands are filed by Harshad

¶107

28 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶108

Shah on 11.09.2018 i.e. during his lifetime, and therefore, his signature is appearing on the said Application.

¶109

Learned Senior Counsel for the Non-applicant No.2 vehemently submitted that there is open space in between City Survey Nos. 560 and 561. The map also shows the said open space. After receipt of the complaint by the NMC from the Non-applicant No.2, notice for removal of the encroachment was given to the Applicants. The report of the NMC shows that, the Applicants have not carried out the construction as per the sanctioned plan and got sanctioned by them, there is an encroachment, and therefore, the Applicants were directed to remove the encroachment. The communication of NMC is dated 18.08.2018 and 04.05.2018. Thus, as far as the investigation papers are concerned, which definitely shows that, there is an encroachment by the present Applicants on the Government land in view of the communication issued by the NMC.

¶110

Now, the question is whether this act of the encroachment would be sufficient to held that the present Applicants have committed an offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Admittedly, the entire

¶111

29 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶112

investigation papers nowhere reveals the allegations that it was these accused persons or the Applicants who have forged the signatures of the persons who are already dead. There is no whisper in the entire investigation papers that these signatures are put by the present Applicants or the Applicant Anil Fulzele. As far as the Applicant Anil Fulzele is concerned, his role is only to the extent of issuing the notices of measurement and submitted a report. Admittedly, no investigation is carried out to show that it was the Applicant Anil Fulzele who has served the said notices, and therefore, he was aware about the death of the said persons. No investigation is further carried out to ascertain that the present Applicants were knowing about the death of the persons to whom notices were issued to remain present. Admittedly, they are not the relatives of the present Applicants, and therefore, there is no reason for them to have knowledge about their death.

¶113

Learned Senior Counsel for the Non-applicant No.2 and learned APP submitted that, in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched by the present Applicants, this act was conducted. Admittedly, except the allegations there is no material collected

¶114

30 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶115

to show that the present Applicants entered into the conspiracy with the co-accused who are the officers of the Land Records and in pursuance of the said conspiracy they have done the said act. Admittedly, direct evidence would not be available regarding the conspiracy as it always hatched in a secrecy but there requires some material to show that by joining hands with each other, the said act is committed by the present Applicants. In absence of the evidence at the stage of investigation it would be difficult to say that there was a conspiracy by the present Applicants. Similarly, the entire investigation papers nowhere discloses that it was the present Applicants who have forged the said documents.

¶116

Mr. Manohar, learned Counsel for the Applicants, rightly submitted in view of judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy (supra), by referring the judgment of Sheila Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharaj , that to attract Section 464 of IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused had made the fake document. No material connecting the accused to the making of the fake document has been adduced in the impugned charge-sheet.

¶117

31 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶118

Similar is the case in the present crime, as there is no single document or even an allegation that it was the present Applicants who have forged the signatures of the dead persons.

¶119

The ingredients of offence of cheating described in Section 415 is that, “Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.”

¶120

To hold a person guilty of cheating as defined under Section 415 of IPC, it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise with an intention to retain the property. In other words, Section 415 of IPC which defines cheating, requires deception of any person:

¶121

(a) inducing that person to,

¶122

32 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶123

(b) to deliver any property to any person,

¶124

(c) to consent that any person shall retain any property, and

¶125

(d) intentionally induces that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person, anybody’s mind, reputation or property.

¶126

To attract the offence punishable under Section 467 of IPC, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under this Section are:

¶127

(i) commission of forgery;

¶128

(ii) that such commission of forgery must be in relation to a document purporting to be

¶129

(a) a valuable property; or

¶130

(b) a will; or

¶131

(c) an authority to adopt a son; or

¶132

(d) which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security; or

¶133

(e) the receive the principle, interest or dividends thereon; or

¶134

33 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶135

(f) to receive or deliver any money, movable property or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or

¶136

(g) an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security.

¶137

Offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC:

¶138

(i) Commission of forgery,

¶139

(ii) that he did so intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating.

¶140

Now, the question is whether the allegations in the aforesaid application are sufficient to constitute the alleged offence. I have already extracted the said contents raised in the application filed by the Non-applicant No.2 against the Applicants in its entirety. Even accepting the said allegations as it is, at the most it is revealed that the Applicants have not constructed as per the sanctioned plan and they have encroached upon the Government land. The materials on record pertaining to the entire investigation papers shows that, except the allegations of the encroachment no other allegation sustains in view of the entire investigation papers.

¶141

34 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶142

Learned Senior Counsel for the Non-applicant No.2, vehemently submitted that, the mini trial is not expected at this stage. There is no dispute regarding the settled position of law. Admittedly, the mini trial is not permissible while considering the application for quashing.

¶143

He placed reliance on Central Bureau of

¶144

Investigation (supra), wherein this settled position is reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the case of Dharambeer Kumar Singh (supra), wherein considering the facts of that case it is observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that, the High Court ought to have considered the complicity of the accused in case of forgery. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is designed to achieve the purpose of ensuring that criminal proceedings are not permitted to generate into weapons of harassment.

¶145

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Usha Chakraborty & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., (2023) 15 SCC 135 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court refers the decision of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp.(1)

¶146

SCC 335 , wherein the powers of quashing can be exercised in the following circumstances, which reads as under:-

¶147

35 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶148

“(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶149

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶150

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶151

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶152

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶153

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶154

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

¶155

In the said judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court further

¶156

refers the decision of Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand

¶157

& Ors., 2013(11) SCC 673 , which reads as under:-

¶158

36 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶159

“12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.”

¶160

In is further held by the Hon’ble Apex Court is the

¶161

case of Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, 3 (2015) 8

¶162

SCC 293 , which reads as under:-

¶163

“13. It is true that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may be available to the complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offence of cheating or not. In the 2 (2015) 8 SCC 293 present case there is nothing to show that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC. In our view the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all. The criminal proceedings should not be encouraged when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. The superior courts while exercising this power should also strive to serve the ends of justice. In our opinion in view of these facts allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of the court and the High Court committed an error in refusing to exercise the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings.”

¶164

37 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶165

After carefully scrutinizing the Applications filed by

¶166

the Applicants in the light of the allegations levelled against them and the entire investigation papers did not contain the ingredients to constitute the alleged offences. It nowhere discloses that, the Complainant had made out a prima facie case against the present Applicants. Moreover, the investigation papers shows that the FIR came to be lodged against the present Applicants in view of the directions given by the Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., in Cri.M.A. No. 3479/2022. During pendency of Cri.M.A. No. 3479/2022 another application bearing Misc.Cri.No. 1653/2023 was filed without mentioning pendency of application bearing Cri.M.A. No. 3479/2022. Subsequently, Misc.Cri.No. 1653/2023 was withdrawn. Thus, the Non-applicant No.2 has concealed the fact that initially also he has filed an application for seeking directions under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C but the same was withdrawn. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that in order to cause registration of FIR and consequential investigation based on the same under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Non-applicant No.2 must satisfy the essential ingredients to attract the alleged offence. If such

¶167

38 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶168

allegations in the application are vague and are not specific with respect to the alleged offences it cannot lead to an order for registration of an F.I.R. and investigation on the accusation of commission of the offences alleged.

¶169

As observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

¶170

of Usha Chakraborty & Anr. (supra) in para 18 which reads as under:

¶171

“By non-disclosure the respondent has, in troth, concealed the existence of a pending civil suit between him and the appellants herein before a competent civil court which obviously is the causative incident for the respondent’s allegation of perpetration of the aforesaid offences against the appellants. We will deal with it further and also its impact a little later.”

¶172

Here in the present case also the present

¶173

Non-applicant No.2 has not disclosed regarding his previous application filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and its withdrawal.

¶174

As observed earlier, a bare perusal of the said allegations and the entire documents, the ingredients which require to constitute the offence are not made out and the entire investigation papers and documents would reveal that the

¶175

39 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶176

allegations are vague and they did not carry the essential ingredients to constitute the offence. There is absolutely no allegation either in the FIR or any of the statements that it was the present Applicants who have forged by forging the signatures of the dead persons and thereby they have committed an offence of forgery as well as cheat.

¶177

The factual position thus would reveal that the genesis as also the purpose of criminal proceeding is nothing but to involve the present Applicants in a criminal offence though the dispute involved is essentially of civil nature. Moreover, the Non-applicant No.2 has already availed the civil remedy which is pending in the above circumstances coupled with the fact in respect of the issue involved which is of a civil nature, the Non-applicant No.2 has already approached the jurisdiction of the Civil Court by instituting a civil suit and it is already pending. Moreover, there is no doubt with respect to the fact that, the ingredients of the offence are not made out to constitute the offence. Even accepting the allegations as it is, therefore for all above reasons I am of the considered opinion that, this is a fit case wherein the powers under Section 482 of

¶178

40 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt

¶179

Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR registered based on the direction of the Magistrate Court in the aforesaid Applications and all further proceedings in pursuance thereof I have no hesitation to hold that permitting continuance of the criminal proceedings against the present Applicants in the aforesaid circumstances would result in abuse of the process of the Court and also in miscarriage of justice. In the result, the Applications deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.

¶180

O R D E R

¶181

i. Criminal Application (APL) Nos. 736/2024 and 720/2024 are allowed .

¶182

ii. The First Information Report in connection with Crime No. 999/2023 registered with Police Station Tahsil, District Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 167, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing R.C.C. No.5110/2025, are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of present Applicants.

¶183

Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

¶184

(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)

¶185

S.D.Bhimte Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 16/04/2026 19:23:57

Meena Wd/O Harshad Shah and 2 Another v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Ps, in Charge, Tahasil P.S. Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

Meena Wd/O Harshad Shah and 2 Another v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Ps, in Charge, Tahasil P.S. Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Intiyaz Moh Rasul vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ramtek Dist Nagpur

Dyneshwar Manchakrao Malwe vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Ps Gobervahi Bhandara

Sangita W/O. Sanjay Rai vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Pandharkawda Dist. Yeotmal and Another.

Keshaorao Chandrabhanji Vaidya and Other vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohammad Salim S/O Abdul Kalam vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Nagpuri Dist Amravati

Akash S/O Jaybhim Kamble vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Kotwali, Amravati City, Tq. and Dist. Amravati and Another