High Court
Legal Reasoning
1APPLN.868.2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 868 OF 20241.Lalit Kishanchand DemalaAge. 70 Yrs, Occu. Business,2.Sau. Nita Lalit DemalaAge. 65 Yrs., Occu. Household,3.Harsh Lalit Demala,Age. 39 Yrs, Occu. Business,4.Bahawana Harsh Demala,Age. 37 Yrs, Occu. Household,5.Sagar Surendra Motwani,Age. 48 Yrs, Occu. Business,6.Vijay Ramdas GunjalAge. 27 Yrs, Occu. Service, All R/o. Krishna Sadan, Plot No.38, Jainagar, Zilla Peth, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.… ApplicantsVersus1.The State of Maharashtra. 2.Surekha Kamlesh MaruAge. 69 Yrs, Occu. Business, R/o. Krishna Sadan, Plot No.38, Jainagar, Zilla Peth, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. At present r/o. Yash Plaza Building Gold City Hospital, Pimprala Road,Jalgaon. Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.… Respondents...Mr. Satej S. Jadhav, Advocate for Applicants.Mrs. R. P. Gour, APP for respondent No.1 / State. ... 2APPLN.868.2024.odtCORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :17th June, 2025.O R D E R: (Per Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.)1Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 2This application has been filed under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) forquashment of the FIR bearing Crime No.0387 of 2023, dated 2ndDecember, 2023, registered at Ramanand Nagar Police Station,District Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 457and 380 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “theIPC”).3The respondent No.2 / informant averred in the report thatshe is a businesswoman and presently residing at Yash Plaza Building,near Gold City Hospital, Pimprala Road, Jalgaon. She had beenresiding alongwith her husband in a flat situated on the first floor of thebuilding known as “Krishna Sadan”, Plot No.38, Jalgaon, for the past35 years on a rental basis. The owner of the said flat, namelyapplicant No.1 – Lalit Kishanchand Demala, also resided on theground floor of the same building. Applicant No.1 had initiated civil 3APPLN.868.2024.odtproceedings against the informant and obtained an ex-parte decreefrom the competent civil court for eviction, thereby directing theinformant to vacate the premises. In response, the informant preferredan appeal against the said decree and the matter of possession is stillpending. Despite being aware of this, applicant No.1 continued topressurize the informant to vacate the premises. The informant andher husband had informed him that they would abide by the decision ofthe Court in the pending appeal. 4The informant further averred that on 18th April, 2023, shehad travelled to Pune for medical treatment and her husband had goneto Indore for professional reasons. During this period, their domestichelp, Vatsalabai Uttam Hire, was regularly visiting the house forcleaning. However, on 7th May, 2023, due to illness, she could notreport for duty. On the next day i.e. 8th May, 2023, when Vatsalabaivisited the house for routine cleaning, she noticed that the mainwooden door of the informant’s flat had been removed and replacedwith an iron door. Vatsalabai immediately informed Shruti Shah, aresident of the second floor, who then telephonically informed theinformant that applicant No.1 had installed the iron door. Uponreceiving this information, the informant and her husband immediatelyreturned to Jalgaon. However, upon arrival, they found the staircasegate locked. When they approached applicant No.1 regarding the 4APPLN.868.2024.odtsame, he informed them that since the Court had ordered eviction,they should no longer enter the premises. Consequently, theytemporarily took shelter at the residence of the informant’s brother AtulSatish Jain in Jalgaon City. On 9th May, 2023, the informant submitteda written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon. Thematter was forwarded to the Tahsildar under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C.Subsequently, the Tahsildar issued a notice and initiated proceedingsunder Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. During these proceedings, an orderwas issued by the Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar, Jalgaon,directing both parties to maintain status-quo in respect of that propertyand restrained them from committing any act, which may breach peaceand disturb public order. 5The informant further averred that a site inspection wasscheduled by the Tahsildar on 6th July, 2023 at 11:00 a.m., andaccordingly, both parties were summoned with necessary documentsby letter dated 3rd June, 2023. However, on 22nd June, 2023, theinformant received a phone call from her domestic help, Vatsalabai,informing her that applicant No.1 alongwith applicant Nos.2 to 6 hadentered the informant’s flat without consent and removed thehousehold articles. Thereupon, the informant submitted an urgentapplication to the Executive Magistrate for site inspection and hearingand accordingly, a Panchanama was drawn up on 6th July, 2023, in the 5APPLN.868.2024.odtpresence of both parties. During the inspection, GPS-taggedphotographs were taken of the furniture, cupboards, kitchen, andbathroom.6The informant further averred that upon such inspection, itwas revealed that the following articles had been stolen from that flat:-i.Cash amount of ₹5,10,000/- kept in a bag inside thecupboard.ii.Gold ornaments weighing approximately 50 tolas (asreceived at the time of her marriage in 1976 from herparents and relatives), valued at around Rs.5,00,000/-as per 1976 valuation.iii.Antique silver utensils worth approximatelyRs.2,00,000/-.iv.Diamond and ruby-studded ring worth approximatelyRs.2,00,000/-.v.Household items worth Rs.4,50,000/-.vi.One black rectangular Rado wristwatch (used) worthapproximately Rs.45,000/-.vii.One Cartier gold and silver round wristwatch worthapproximately Rs.65,000/-. And viii.Important documents including cheque-books, bankpassbooks (HDFC, Mahavir Bank, Janata Bank,Union Bank), locker keys, property documents,income tax documents, Aadhaar card, election card,PAN card, etc.
Legal Reasoning
6APPLN.868.2024.odt7Thus, the total value of the stolen property amounted toapproximately Rs.19,70,000/-. The informant finally averred that on22nd June, 2023, all the aforementioned movable property, includingvaluables, jewellery, cash, and documents, had been dishonestlyremoved from the informant’s residence by the applicants without herknowledge, consent, or authority and with fraudulent intent. Therefore,the report was lodged against the applicants. 8The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that theapplicants are falsely implicated in the crime. There is no cogent andacceptable evidence against the applicants. There is no eye-witnessto the incident. He further submitted that the civil suit for recovery ofpossession of the suit premises was admittedly disposed of. Theinformant is residing in Pune and her husband is residing in Indore.They have handed over the possession of the suit premises to theapplicants. However, false allegations of theft are made against them.He further submitted that applicant No.1 filed R.C.S. No.147 of 2019for recovery of possession and for rent, but the tenant i.e. informantfailed to appear before the Court, therefore, the Court was pleased topass the ex-parte decree. On the basis of said decree, applicant No.1had filed R.D. No.285 of 2022 for getting possession of the flat andsame is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 7APPLN.868.2024.odtJalgaon, but meanwhile a compromise took place between the parties.The informant after receipt of five lakhs handed over the possession ofrented premises to the applicants. Regular Civil Suit No.116 of 2023 isfiled by applicant No.1 for injunction and declaration against theinformant, who is a tenant and the same is pending. In such asituation, if the applicants are compelled to face the trial, it would be anabuse of the process of the Court. He lastly prayed to allow theapplication. 9The learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that possession is not handed over to theapplicants. There is evidence of an audio call recording, in which thewitnesses have stated that the applicants were involved in the saidcrime and they took away the said articles. Considering the factsituation of the case, the evidence against the applicants is sufficient toprove the theft of the articles of the informant. She lastly prayed toreject the application. 10Here, it is relevant to refer to the decision of theHonourable Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid and Another Vs.State of U.P. and Another, reported in, 2023 SCC Online SC 951;2023 INSC 683, whereunder the Honourable Supreme Court heldthus:- 8APPLN.868.2024.odt“34.……. it will not be just enough for the Court to look intothe averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for thepurpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients toconstitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. Infrivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty tolook into many other attending circumstances emerging fromthe record of the case over and above the averments and, ifneed be, with due care and circumspection try to read inbetween the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdictionunder Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of theConstitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a casebut is empowered to take into account the overallcircumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the caseas well as the materials collected in the course ofinvestigation....”11We have perused the papers of investigation, particularly,the report and the statements of witnesses as well as the documentsof the civil litigation between the parties. Civil litigation is decided infavour of these applicants. The statement of witnesses, particularly,maid Smt. Vatsalabai Hire is recorded, in which she has stated thatshe had not seen applicant No.1 and others while taking away thearticles. Further, witness Shruti Ajay Shah also stated that she hadnever seen the applicants while taking away the ornaments and otherarticles. In the spot Panchanama, no article is found there in the flat.The audio call script of a conversation between the informant andVatsalabai Hire and others is placed on record. However, thestatements of witnesses, particularly, Vatsalabai Hire and Shruti AjayShah are very clear that they do not know as to when and how these 9APPLN.868.2024.odtarticles were taken away. If all these documents are consideredtogether alongwith the above stated reasons then the essentialingredients of Sections 454, 457 and 380 of the IPC are notestablishing against the applicants. Considering above reasons andthe law laid down in the case of Mohammad Wajid and Another(supra), if the applicants are compelled to face the trial, it wouldcertainly be an abuse of the process of the Court. We are, therefore,inclined to allow the application by exercising our inherent powersunder Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice to prevent theabuse of the process of the Court. The application, therefore,deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order:-O R D E RI.The application is allowed.II.Crime No.0387 of 2023, dated 2nd December, 2023,registered at Ramanand Nagar Police Station, DistrictJalgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections454, 457 and 380 read with 34 of the Indian PenalCode, stands quashed as against all these applicants. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga