1 Criminal Application No.3220/2010 with Criminal Application No.2112/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3220 OF 2010 Shrikant Sudhakar Dahale ... APPLICANT VERSUS Bhavanidasrao s/o Bhalchandrarao Kulkarni and others ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri D.P. Palodkar, Advocate for applicant Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for respondents 1 to 4 Shri V.H. Dighe, A.P.P. for respondent No.5. Shri Prashant Nagargoje, Advocate for respondent No.6. ..... W I T H CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2112 OF 2010 Bhavanidasrao s/o Bhalchandrarao Kulkarni and others ... APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for applicants ShrI V.H. Dighe, A.P.P. for respondent No.1. Shri Prashant Nagargoje, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 9th February, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard. Criminal Application No.3220/2010 is moved by 2 Criminal Application No.3220/2010 with Criminal Application No.2112/2010 purchaser of the property, to intervene, who claims that original complainant in F.I.R. No.59/2010, registered with Ambad Police Station is his vendor concerning agricultural properties. The counsel also submits that, taking advantage of the status and position, fraudulent documents are prepared by petitioners, thereby the interest of the petitioner has been abridged and squeezed. Counsel has alleged laxity and omission on the part of Investigator forcing him to approach this Court and hence, Investigator was changed. 2. For the present, whatever may be the grievance available to the petitioner claiming himself to be owner of the property, he is at liberty to resolve the same at appropriate place and in proper proceedings. However, his challenge seeking impleadment or to be heard in Application No.2112/2010 is not maintainable as the quashment is between petitioner (accused) and original complainant. Consequently, Criminal Application No. 3220/2010 disposed of. 3. By Criminal Application No.2112/2010, a request is made to quash F.I.R. No.59/2010 for the offence under Sections 420, 468, 471, 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Katneshwarkar and Mr. Nagargoje for the respective parties submit that the matter is settled between the petitioner and original 3 Criminal Application No.3220/2010 with Criminal Application No.2112/2010 complainant (respondent No.2) and hence, have urged to quash the said proceedings. 4. In order to emphasize his submissions, Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance to the judgment of the Apex Court (a) in the matter of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana (2003 (4) SCC 675), (b) in the matter of Puttaswamy Vs. State of Karnataka & anr. (2008 (12) Judgment Today 561), (c) in the matter of Bhavika Manor Sonar Vs. Manoj Narendra Sonar (2010(3) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 24) (by the learned Single Judge of this Bench), (d) in the matter of Fakira Shamrao Sormare Vs. State of Maharashtra (2010(3) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 70, (e) in the matter of Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & anr. (2008(9) SCC 677) and (f) in the matter of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab (2008(4) SCC 582). 5. The learned counsel reiterates that, in the light of settled legal position enunciated in the above referred judgments of Apex Court and also of the learned Single Judge of this Court, this is a fit case wherein proceedings necessarily should be quashed and set aside as the matter is worked out between the litigants. 6. The second limb of submission of the learned counsel 4 Criminal Application No.3220/2010 with Criminal Application No.2112/2010 is, even otherwise, reading the F.I.R., no case for the offences are carved out against the petitioner. 7. There cannot be a quarrel and contest on the legal proposition enunciated hereinabove. In the matter of Nikhil Merchant (supra), The Bank employee was roped in. Company had settled the controversy with Bank by making remittance and the Bank was also not keen to prosecute the matter. It was observed in paragraph Nos.23 and 24 as under :-- “23. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents wee alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this Court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised ? 24. On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi’s case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filed by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise 5 Criminal Application No.3220/2010 with Criminal Application No.2112/2010 arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.” 8. In the matter of Madan Mohan Abbot (supra), the Lordships in paragraph No.5 have observed as under : “It is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in the High Court for quashing of proceedings which has been dismissed by the impugned order. We notice from a reading of the FIR and the other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the accused. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise and also in the light of the fact that the complainant has, on 11th January 2004, passed away and the possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to be ruled out. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and benefit of the technicalities of the law. We see from the impugned order that the learned Judge has confused a compounding of an offence with the quashing of proceedings. The outer limit of Rs.250/- which has led to the dismissal of the application is an irrelevant factor in the later case. We accordingly allow the appeal and in the peculiar facts of the case, direct that the FIR No. 155 dated 17th November 2001 P.S. Kotwali, Amritsar and all proceedings connected therewith shall be deemed to be quashed.” 6 Criminal Application No.3220/2010 with Criminal Application No.2112/2010 9. Now reverting to the facts of present cae, the respondent No.2 (original complainant) moved the police, informing that the transaction concerning the agricultural property in favour of the petitioner by virtue of agreement of sale was illegal. He pointed that, based on agreement of sale, mutation entries in other rights column were made by the revenue authorities in collusion of petitioners of the property which was already reserved and acquired by the Government or the Municipal Council, Ambad. It is curious, compensation has been deposited in respect of the acquired property still there was a fraudulent transaction concerning the property acquired, of which the respondent No.2 claims to be original owner (vendor of Mr. Dahale). Even if the respondent No.2 desires to withdraw the proceedings, it is apparent, the approach of the petitioners was to dupe Government, fraudulently enter into the transactions of the property which was acquired and title vests in Government as compensation was paid. I need not to advert to the contention of owner Sudhakar Dahale that the agreement of sale itself was forged or that no mutation could have been taken as there was a ban by virtue of specific directions in the region. Fact remains, allowing such compromise to work and quashing the proceedings will be against public policy and it will be a loss to the 7 Criminal Application No.3220/2010 with Criminal Application No.2112/2010 public exchequer. It will give a mileage to petitioner to hold property to which they have no title belongs to Government or part of it to the purchaser. It is not a feud and challenge between two individuals and that too not of a civil nature. The allegations of forging the documents, cheating the lawful owners, illegally getting lands mutated, are within the sweep of criminal prosecution and will seldom to be identified as a civil dispute. Consequently, the request to quash the F.I.R. No.59/2010 is rejected. Observations are prima facie in nature, to be restricted to the present proceedings only. 10. Heard. Interim relief in the proceedings is extended up to 31st March 2011. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE fmp/cri3220.10