1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.143/2008. (1.Satwaji Begaji Dhonde and Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.G.O.Wattamwar, Adv. h/for Mr.SG Rudrawar, Adv. for applicants; Mr.SG Nandedkar, APP for State; Mr.Sachin Deshmukh, Adv. for Respondent No.2. ___ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : 15 th October 2009. 1. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent, the matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage and heard learned Counsel for the parties extensively. 2. F.I.R. bearing No.45/2007 dated 4.11.2007 registered at Police Station Himayatnagar, District Nanded against the present applicants/accused for an offence under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC, is sought to be quashed by exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. The complainant – Shivaji Potanna Gadamwar canvassed before the police that he had sale transaction in favour of Parmeshwar Dhondiba Sabhalkar for his 2 land for a consideration of Rs. 5,70,000 and at the same time, it was interse orally agreed between the present accused Satwaji, his brother Vivek that they will dispose of/ sale their property being land to the extent of 5 acres of Gut No.148 and 3 acres from Gut No. 141, totalling eight acres for a total consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-. Consequent upon such oral agreement, an amount of Rs.16,000/- allegedly was paid to the present accused/applicants and said Parmeshwar Sabhalkar has on 23rd April, 2005 deposited Rs.3,84,000/- in the account of Satwaji, the applicant no.1 herein in District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Himayatnagar. It was expected from the present accused/applicants to execute a sale- deed of 8 acres of the land from Gut Nos. 148 and 141, referred above, as was orally agreed between the parties, however, he has avoided to execute the sale deed and hence prosecution is launched against the applicants/accused. 4. During the course of submissions, it is informed that after investigation, charge sheet is filed and trial is commenced, which follows that the very purpose of making an application seeking quashment of the F.I.R. will not be sustainable. The accused/applicants 3 have other remedies available, which they can exhaust. 5. With these observations, Criminal Application disposed of. Rule discharged. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/cran143.08