High Court
Facts
{1} 204.29 R crapln.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 204 OF 2020DINKAR S/O. GOVINDRAO KAKNATE AND OTHERSVERSUSSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS.…Mr. S.C. Swami, Advocate for applicants.Mr. A.V. Lavte, APP for respondent StateMr. S.K. Mathpati, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ. DATE : 5th SEPTEMBER, 2024. P.C. :-1.The applicants have approached this court under Section482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR dated 27.10.2017 in crime No.323 of 2017 registered with Police Station, Chakur as well as proceedingin RCC No. 323 of 2017 pending before J.M.F.C. Chakur, for the offencespunishable under sections 420, 467, 468 r/w. 34 of IPC2,Respondent No.2 herein filed report dated 27.10.2017 withPolice Station, Udgir-Rural, alleging that she owns the land in Gat NO.20/1 admeasuring 88R within the limits of Algarwadi abutting to LaturNanded road. The son of the applicant namely, Santosh Baburao Karalewas working as a Junior Clerk in a school, namely, Dr. BabasahebAmbedkar Primary and Secondary School run by Janseva Multipurposesociety, Anjansoda (Bk.) In the year 2006, the president of the aforesaid {2} 204.29 R crapln.odtsociety, under the pretext that son of respondent No.2 would beaccommodated on a higher post of Laboratory Assistant, asked her totransfer land to the extent of 44R in the name of the society. Afterdiscussion, looking to the offer and better opportunity to her son, sheexecuted registered sale deed at a nominal price of Rs. 1 Lakh in favourof the society. At the same time, a separate bond was executed byPresident assuring appointment to son of the informant on the post ofLaboratory Assistant and payment of consequential salary as per higherpay scale. It is further alleged that although the land of the informant istaken by the society, her son was not appointed on the higher post ofLaboratory assistant nor he is paid the salary as per the assurance. Wheninformant asked for re-conveyance of the land, the accused personsrefused to do so. Accordingly, respondent No.2 – informant alleges thataccused persons have cheated her. On the basis of aforesaid information,crime No. 323 of 2017 came to be registered with police station, Udgirfor the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468 r/w. 34 of IPCagainst in all 7 accused persons i.e. trustees and office bearers of theJanseva Multipurpose society. 3.On registration of FIR, investigation progressed and finalcharge sheet came to be filed against accused persons in the court ofJMFC, Chakur vide RCC No. 323 of 2017. Same is pending for trialbefore the JMFC, Chakur.4.Mr. S.C. Swami, learned advocate for the applicants submitsthat applicants are unconcerned with the transaction between respondentNo.2 and applicant No.2 i.e. President of the society/trust. The son ofthe complainant, namely, Santosh was working in the school. However, {3} 204.29 R crapln.odtthe applicants have no knowledge about the transaction betweenrespondent No.2 and President of the Trust nor they are party to suchagreement or assurance. The school has been closed down in the year2016. Till then, the son of the respondent No.2 was working. In caseschool starts functioning, son of the respondent No.2 can be re-instatedin service. The applicants are falsely implicated in aforesaid crime and nooffence can be made out against them on the basis of contents of FIR andcharge sheet.5.Per contra, Mr. A .B. Lavte, learned APP and Mr. S.K.Mathpati, learned advocate for respondent No.2 vehemently oppose theapplication contending that applicants being trustees are responsible forthe commission of offence. All the office bearers of Janseva MultipurposeSociety/Trust had persuaded respondent No.2 to transfer her land in thename of the society with the assurance that her son Santosh would beaccommodated against higher post of laboratory assistant. A separatebond was executed for that purpose. However, after getting transfer ofthe land at throw-away price, the benefit is not extended to the son ofrespondent No.2. This is a clear case of cheating. They would, therefore,urge to reject the application.6.We have considered the submissions advanced by learnedadvocate appearing for respective parties. We have perused the contentsof the FIR and charge sheet. The documents on record clearly depict thatrespondent No.2 was owner of the land bearing Gat No.20/1admeasuring 88R situated on Latur Nanded road in the vicinity of villageAlgarwadi, Taluka Chakur. The respondent No.2 has executed sale deeddated 28.4.2006 in favour of Janseva Multipurpose society as against {4} 204.29 R crapln.odtconsideration of Rs. 1 Lakh. Although the President of the Trust hassigned the document on behalf of the trust, the other trustees cannotrefuse their involvement in the transaction. The FIR clearly stipulatesthat the trustees including the applicants have persuaded respondentNo.2 to execute the sale deed on assurance that her son would beaccommodated against higher post of Laboratory Assistant. The land tothe extent of 44R is accordingly transferred in the name of the trustunder the registered sale deed for consideration of Rs. 1 Lakh only.Charge sheet contains independent bond executed on 28.4.2006 which isalso signed by the President of the Trust, which contains specificassurance that the son of the informant namely, Santosh would beaccommodated against the post of Laboratory Assistant and he would bepaid salary accordingly.7.There is nothing on record to show that the Trust hasfulfilled its obligation. Whether the applicants being trustees are involvedin the aforesaid transactions; whether their complicity in commission ofoffence can be established on the basis of material in the charge sheetand whether they can be held guilty for the offences, as alleged, are thequestions to be answered during trial. Although this Court has powers toquash the criminal proceeding in exercise of inherent powers underSection 482 of Cr.PC. it is trite that such powers can be exercisedsparingly, where no offence can be made out against accused persons orprosecution would result in abuse of process of law. In the present case,the allegations in the FIR coupled with documents like sale deed andbond paper depicts the involvement of the applicants. The charge sheetcontains statement of Mr. Madhav Awande, who appears to be witness onthe sale deed as well as bond dated 28.4.2006. He supports case of
Legal Reasoning
{5} 204.29 R crapln.odtrespondent No. 2. Perusal of such material prima facie makes out triablecase. In that view of the matter, we find that no case is made out toexercise our inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quashthe FIR and proceeding against the applicants. Consequently, theapplication stands rejected.[S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J] grt/-