1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.257/2011. (Rajendra Prasad Sohanlal Baid and one another Vs. State of Maharashtra) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. R.M. Daga, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. Anoop Parihar, APP for the Respondent/State. --- CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J DATE : 20 th JULY, 2011. 1. Heard Mr. Daga, Advocate for the applicants and Mr. Anoop Parihar, Additional Public prosecutor for the respondent/State. 2. By this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. applicants are seeking to quash F.I.R. dated 26.04.2011 registered at Police Station Sonegaon, Nagpur vide C.R. No.37/2011 for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 487, 471, 120-B r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C. The complaint was lodged by Arun Atmaramji Walke against Dipak Someshwar Supate, Sheikh Rajju Sheikh Khalil, Ravi Purushottam Waghade and the present applicants. The contention of present applicants is that the complainant had lodged complaint against the present applicants without any just and reasonable cause. In fact, applicants themselves are victim of cheating by Dipak Someshwar Supate, who is one of the accused named in the F.I.R. Applicants have suffered because of cheating and forgery done by said Dipak 2 Someshwar Supate. F.I.R. is lodged by Shri Arun A. Walke. In order to show their bonafides, they have filed Regular Civil Suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division for claiming the relief of declaration and injunction against Dipak Someshwar Supate. The suit was instituted on 12.07.2011 stating therein that said Dipak Someshwar Supate has played fraud on the present applicants and misrepresented them for sale of the plot to the other person. It is also submitted that applicants who were cheated and were made to part with valuable consideration for the immovable property should be ready and willing to hand over the property to the real owner, who is entitled to possession according to law after receiving their money paid by way of consideration. 3. It appears that the case of the prosecution is that Dipak Someshwar Gupta was arrested on 20.05.2011 while rest of the accused had succeeded in obtaining anticipatory bail in the Sessions Court. The complainant Arun A. Walke had owned and possessed plot No. 37, P.H. 44 admeasuring 2400 sq.ft. at Somalwada. It was purchased by the complainant from Bhartiya Gruh Samasya Niwaran Sanstha through its Secretary, Ishwar Chandel for a valuable consideration of Rs.6000/- on 26.05.1982. It was accordingly registered and mutated in all local bodies on or about 13.01.2010. The accused Dipak Someshwar Supate and Amit Kapate conspired with each other by creating someone misrepresenting himself as Arun Walke (a bogus person who 3 signed as owner of the plot and two persons by name Sheikh Rajju Sheikh Khalil and Ravi Purushottam Waghade had signed as witnesses to the sale deed). After nine days of the said bogus sale deed, accused Dipak, Amit, Ravi and Kishor sold the said plot to the applicants Rajendra Prasad Sohanlal Baid and Rakeshkumar Rajendra Prasad Baid. In that transaction, Anant Sable and Amit Kapate have signed as witnesses in the registered sale deed, which according to complainant, is bogus. Thereafter, the applicants have mutated their respective names in all the offices and local bodies and started constructing building on the said plot. Arun Walke, who saw the construction in or about March 2010, immediately contacted the applicants and told them that he is owner of the said plot. The applicants contended that accused Dipak and Amit tried to sell the plot to one Sharad Bijwe and received earnest amount in the sum of Rs.51,000/-. Sharad Bijwe through his Advocate Shailesh Ghagharkar issued an advertisement in the newspapers on 28.12.2010 thereby inviting objections, if any from general public regarding intended purchase of the said plot. The said advertisement appeared in daily “Lokmat” on 30.12.2010. Complainant Arun Walke through his Advocate took objection pursuant to the said notice. Sharad Bijwe had seen all the documents in respect of ownership of complainant Arun Walke and thus, the earnest amount which was received by Rajendra Prasad Baid and Rakeshkumar Baid was returned to Sharad Bijwe. 4 4. According to the complainant, although the accused did not own that plot, they tried to re-sell the plot. The main grievance of the complainant is that the accused Dipak Someshwar Supate (arrested accused) in connivance with bogus owner, who posed himself as Arun Walke (arrested), sold the plot under bogus transaction to Dipak Someshwar Supate under sale deed dated 13.01.2010 and then the same plot was resold to the present applicants under purported sale deed dated 22.01.2010. 5. Learned Advocate for the applicants therefore, contended that the accusation against the present applicant is at the most that they tried to re-sell the plot. It is submitted that the applicants are sufferers as they have lost their money to a person who cheated them and were constrained to file Regular Civil Suit against Dipak Someshwar Supate for declaration that said Dipak had played fraud upon them and misrepresented to sell the said plot. It is also submitted that applicants are ready and willing to part with the disputed plot in favour of the real owner, as may be directed by the competent court of law. 6. Since it appears from the nature of accusation that the offences of cheating, forgery, fabricating of false documents etc. are alleged mainly against Dipak Someshwar Supate, Sheikh Rajju Sheikh Khalil, Ravi Purushottam Waghade, the present applicants may be at the most witnesses as to how the transaction in their favour is entered into by Dipak Someshwar Supate since they are ready and willing to part with possession of the disputed 5 plot in favour of the real owner as may be directed by the competent court of law. No criminal offences can be attributed to them at this stage. The applicants are however expected to cooperate with ongoing investigation so as to enable it to reach logical end to book the real culprits. 7. Under these circumstances, criminal proceedings against the applicants herein indicting them as accused would be improper as the allegations made against these applicants, even if accepted as correct, would not constitute elements of any offence. At the most, their statements may be recorded as witnesses in the case, since it appears that they have filed Regular Civil Suit against accused Dipak Someshwar Supate in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur and raised a civil dispute. 8. For the above reasons, since criminal proceedings against the present applicants do not constitute any offence of cheating, forgery etc. as alleged, criminal proceedings cannot continue against the present applicants. Hence, F.I.R. as against the present applicants is quashed. Application is allowed accordingly. JUDGE NSN