Chandrakant Khidake & Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

(Per : Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.)

Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

The applicants have approach this Court by filing this application under Section 482 of The Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of First Information Report No.1227/2021, dated 2.12.2021, registered with Police Station Kotwali, District Amravati City for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants also prayed for quashing and setting aside a Regular Criminal Case No.1402/2022, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati.

As per the First Information Report lodged by the non-applicant No.2 his father, namely, Pundlik Parve was the owner of agricultural land at Mouza Shirala, Gat No.1348/1, admeasuring area 1.22 HR. The First Information Report alleges that the applicants herein in collusion prepared bogus sale-deed pertaining to the said land by showing fictitious person as owner of the land in the year 2013, despite the fact that father of the non-applicant No.2 has passed away in the 1993 itself. On these allegations the First Information Report is lodged which is challenged in the present application.

We have heard Mr. Kshitij Jain, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. M.J. Khan learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.1.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the allegations levelled in the First Information Report are false, frivolous and vexatious and even if the allegations are taken to be true, no offence is made out as far as the present applicants are concerned since they are the bona fide purchasers of the land in question. It is further stated that agricultural land at Mouza Kamunza and Shirala were originally owned by one Pundlik Pandurang Parve, who applied to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati seeking permission to sell these Class-II lands on 11.9.2012 and 29.9.2012. Accordingly, permission was granted to sell the land at Kamunza on 5.12.2012 and the land at Shirala was permitted to be sold on 21.3.2013. Pursuant to the said permission said Pundlik Parve executed registered sale-deed on 13.12.2012 in favour of applicant No.1 and one Shyamsundar Jaju.

He further submits that thereafter one Pukhraj Mohanlal Vyas and Basantidevi Pukhraj Vyas filed a Special Civil Suit bearing No.22/2013 for specific performance and injunction in respect of the land at Mouza Kamunja, wherein Pundlik Parve was added as defendant No.1. In the said matter, the said Pundlik Parve filed vakalatnama and pleadings. It is, therefore, his contention that the averments in the First Information Report that Pundlik Parwe was no more and as expired on 11.7.1993 is not correct. He also submits that on 24.12.2019 the non-applicant No.2 along with his siblings executed a sale-deed in respect of Kamunja land in favour of third party by describing themselves as legal heirs and by relying upon the permission dated 5.12.2012 granted in favour of Pundlik Parve despite their own allegation in the First Information Report that Pundlik Parve died way back in the year 1993. It is further his submission that the dispute is purely civil in nature particularly when the permission order and the registered sale-deed in favour of the applicants has never been challenged. He also submits that there is an inordinate delay in lodging First Information Report despite the non-applicant No.2 being aware of the alleged transactions.

Per Contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.1 opposed the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the matter is serious in nature and the present applicants are involved in similar type of other illegal act and has illegally grabbed immovable property situated in the name of the father of the complainant at Mouza Kanoja, Survey No. 38/2 at village Walgaon, Tahsil and District Amravati. He further submits that the investigation in the matter is completed and since various complicated aspects regarding impersonation or otherwise are involved in the matter, it would require a full-fledge trial. In other words, he prays that it is not a fit case for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482.

We have carefully perused the material on record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. As can be seen from the record, the initial application made by one Pundlik Parve states that he has no issue out of the wedlock. There is a further averments as can be seen from the medical certificate that his date is shown as approximately 69 years in 2012. The orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer granting permission to sell the land in question are dated 5.12.2012 and 21.3.2013 respectively. The signatures appearing on the sale-deed in question also show that there is some difference between the signatures of said Pundlik Pandurang Parve. It is worthwhile to mention that entire transaction is also shown to be by way of cheques. Furthermore, the statement of on Raju Vitthalrao Masram, who happened to be the Corporator during the period from February 2012 to March, 2017 denotes that there was some sort of overlapping of identity as he states that the certificate issued by him in favour of Pundlik Parve shows the photo of Haridas Pandurang Parve. Furthermore, there is material on record to show that there is some triable issue regarding the identity of Pundlik Parve or Haridas Pundlik Parve, who allegedly were real brothers. True, it is that the non-applicant No.2 has attached the permission granted for selling of the property which was granted on 5.12.2012 while even according to him his father expired in the year 1993 itself. However, that solitary fact cannot lead to an inference that there is a un-impachable case in favour of the applicants.

We cannot loose sight of the fact that the jurisdiction under Section 482 is to be used sparingly and not to be utilized to stifle a legitimate prosecution. A beneficial reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxminarayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in unequivocal terms has stated that the powers under Section 482 are even though broad in nature cannot do a tool to stifle a legitimate prosecution when there is some prima facie material against the applicant/original accused. We are, therefore, of the view that this is not a case where the entire charge-sheet has to be quashed. The rival contentions of the parties can only be tested in a full-fledge trial where the witnesses would be subjected to examination and cross-examination and would be confronted with the documents. It would not, therefore, be a fit case to exercise inherent jurisdiction.

We, therefore, pass the following order :

The application is rejected.