Bombay High Court
Mohmad Anis S/O. Jamir Ahmed Jahgirdar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 17 February, 2020
Author: M.G. Sewlikar
Bench: T.V. Nalawade, M.G. Sewlikar
1 criappln350.19-Order
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 350 OF 2019
Mohmad Anis s/o Jamir Ahmed Jahgirdar
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and another
..........................................
Shri, M.L. Dharashive, Advocate for the Applicant
Shri. S.G. Sangle, learned A.P.P.for the Respondent No.1
Shri. D.M. Shinde h/f S.P. Urgunde, Advocate for Respondent No.2
.......................................
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE &
M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.
DATE : 17th FEBRUARY, 2020 ORDER [PER : M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.] :
This is an application for invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the quashment of the F.I.R. No. 13 of 2018 dated 23.01.2018, registered with Police Station Ausa, District Latur, for the ofences punishable under Sections 418, 420, 408, 409, 468, 470, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Facts giving rise to this application are as under :-
Respondent No. 2 Tajoddin Mahebub Qureshi has purchased a land to the extent of 65.50 R out of land Survey No. 4 ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 07:51:11 ::: 2 criappln350.19-Order 45 R from Survey No. 130A situated at Ausa on 31.1.2012. Since then he is the owner and in possession of the said plot. About a year ago the respondent No. 2 sold 40 R land out of the said 65.50 R land from survey No. 130A to one Shabana Ahmed Tamboli and Imran Ahmed Tamboli both resident of Almala, Tq. Ausa. Now the respondent No. 2 is in possession of 25.50 R land as owner out of the said Survey No. 130A.
3. The applicant Mohamed Anis s/o Jamir Ahmed Jahagirdar has got executed a fake agreement to sale and on the basis of which, he fled a Special Civil Suit No. 95 of 2016 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Latur, for specifc performance of the said fake agreement. It is further alleged by the respondent No. 2 that he appeared in the suit and contested the suit. The said suit has been dismissed.
4. It is further alleged by the respondent No. 2 in the FIR that on 28.8.2017 Mohamed Anis s/o Jamir Ahmed Jahagirdar (applicant herein) executed a fake agreement to sale in connivance with one Vishal Jagdale, the Sub Registrar and the attesting witnesses and thereby, cheated the respondent No. 2. On the same day the applicant got executed a fake sale deed bearing No. 636/2017 in connivance with the said Vishal Jagdale and the attesting witnesses Jahirouddin Shaikh and Fahad Ahmed Jahir Ahmed Shaikh. The said fake sale deed pertains to the plot No. 38. The applicant herein for executing this fake ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 07:51:11 ::: 3 criappln350.19-Order sale deed got prepared a fake Adhar Card. The respondent No. 2 has further alleged that he does not own any plot at Akarwai. On the basis of this fake sale deed, he got mutated his name with the connivance of the Talathi, Mahadev Shankarrao Zunjkar and Vikas H. Birajdar vide mutation entry No. 13394. On the basis of these allegations, respondent No. 2 fled application in the Police Station Ausa, on 23.1.2018, on the basis of which ofence under Section 418, 420, 408, 409, 468, 470, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against the applicant Mohamed Anis s/o Jamir Ahmed Jahagirdar bearing Crime No. 13 of 2018.
5. Heard Shri, M.L. Dharashive, learned counsel for the Applicants, Shri. S.G. Sangle, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1 and Shri. D.M. Shinde h/f Shri S.P. Urgunde, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.
6. Shri Dharashive, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that a civil dispute is pending in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Latur. He has further submitted that 3 guntha land out of land purchased by the applicant is acquired for National High Way No. 361 and the applicant will get compensation for the same. Therefore, the respondent No. 2 has fled this F.I.R. for getting compensation out of the said acquisition. He submitted that the dispute is of purely civil nature. He further submitted that the ofence took ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 07:51:11 ::: 4 criappln350.19-Order place within the jurisdiction of Murud Police Station but the crime is registered in Ausa Police Station.
7. Shri Sangle, the learned APP for the State and Shri Shinde, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the applicant got executed a fake sale deed. The respondent No. 2 does not own any land at Akarwai. Still the applicant got executed the sale deed showing the respondent No. 2 as Vendor. Hence they contended that the application deserves to be dismissed.
8. Perused the investigation papers. A copy of sale deed dated 28.8.2017 to the extent of 25.50 R land in Survey No. 130A has been collected by the Investigating Ofcer. It shows that the land to the extent of 25.50 R has been sold by the respondent No. 2 to Mohmad Anis s/o Jamir Ahmjed Jahagirdar i.e. the applicant herein. The said land has been sold for a consideration of Rs. 37,15,000/- and the sale deed recites that respondent No. 2 has received the entire consideration of Rs. 37,15,000/- before the execution of the sale deed. The prosecution has also placed on record the sale deed alleged to be executed by the respondent No. 2 in favour of Imran Amunalla Pathan. The respondent No. 2 has made a categorical statement that he does not own any plot at Akarwai, Tq. And Dist; Latur. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the respondent No. 2 is the owner of the said plot No. 38. Therefore, there appears prima-facie case. The ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 07:51:11 ::: 5 criappln350.19-Order investigating ofcer has submitted a report in which he has stated that the said impersonator has been identifed and his name as Jamir Rafyoddin Patel, who had impersonated the respondent No. 2. On the basis of this evidence, it cannot be said that no ofence is made out against the applicant. Evidence as discussed above clearly indicates the commission of cognizable ofence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. by the applicant. Therefore, the F.I.R. cannot be quashed. This case squarely falls within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Haryana and Ors. V/s. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors; AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 604".
9. Having regard to this, the application is devoid of any substance, hence it is dismissed.
(M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)
mahajansb/
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 07:51:11 :::