High Court
Legal Reasoning
{1} WP-306-2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 306 OF 2023 1.Sanjay S/o Padmakar DarandaleAge: 52 years, Occu: Agril,R/o. Landewadi, Tal-Newasa,Dist. Ahmednagar.2.Rushikesh S/o Sanjay DarandaleAge: 22 years, Occu: Education,R/o. Landewadi, Tal-Newasa,Dist. Ahmednagar.3.Ravindra S/o Kondiram HardeAge: 32 years, Occu: Agril,R/o. Belekarwadi, Tal-Newasa,Dist. Ahmednagar.4.Baban S/o Padmakar DarandaleAge: 56 years, Occu. Agril,R/o. Landewadi, Tal-Newasa,Dist. Ahmednagar....PETITIONERS[Orig. Accused]VERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough the Police Inspector,Sonai Police Station, Sonai,Tal. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar.2.Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar,Tal. & Dist. Ahmednagar.3.Bharat S/o Ramrao JadhavAge: 44 years, Occu. Advocate,R/o. Sonai, Tal- Newasa,Dist. Ahmednagar....RESPONDENTSMr. K.N. Shermale, Advocate for petitionersMr. A.S. Gandhi, Advocate for respondent No. 3Mr. N.S. Tekale, APP for respondent No. 1 and 2-State Bhagyawant Punde {2} WP-306-2023....... CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ. RESERVED ON : 19th AUGUST, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 04th SEPTEMBER, 2025JUDGMENT: [PER NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With theconsent of parties heard finally at the admission stage. 2.Petitioners by this petition filed under Article 226 and227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code ofCriminal Procedure, seek quashing of FIR No. 0150 of 2021dated 09.05.2021 registered with Sonai Police Station, Sonai,Taluka- Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar for offence under Section 379r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.3.Respondent No. 3 lodged FIR against the petitionersin short alleging that, he and his family members purchased theproperty Gut No. 150 (for short “the said land”) of Namrata Attaland Vishal Attal through power of attorney holder RajendraShrinivas Attal by executing a registered sale deed. At the timeof purchase of said land, there was standing sugarcane crop inthe said land. Informant registered the sugarcane crop with MulaSugar Factory, Sonai, in the name of his mother and brother. OnBhagyawant Punde {3} WP-306-202304.05.2021 at about 06.00 am informant went to the said land,at that time, sugarcane crop was standing in the land. On06.05.2021 at about 2.30 pm, he came to know that petitionersare cutting the sugarcane and transporting it. Therefore, he wentto the said land and saw that petitioners were cutting thesugarcane with the help of harvester and were transporting it inthe truck and tractor. Since he reached there, they left the saidland by leaving the sugarcane in 3 Ghunta area. He tried toinquire as to where stolen sugarcane was disposed of. However,he could not get any information. Therefore, he realized thatpetitioners have stolen the sugarcane crop from the said land.He therefore lodged FIR on 09.05.2021.4.Pursuant to the investigation, charge sheet came tobe filed in the crime and case is registered as Regular CriminalCase No. 716 of 2023, petitioners seek quashing of the same. 5.Heard learned advocate for the petitioners, learnedAPP for State and learned advocate for respondent No. 3.6.Learned advocate for the petitioners by relying onMohd. Khalid Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another1,1(2015) 15 SCC 679Bhagyawant Punde {4} WP-306-2023Govind Prasad Kejriwal Vs. State of Bihar and Another2, decisionin Urmila Devi and Others Vs. Balram & Another3 andMohammad Wajid & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Others4submitted that civil dispute in respect of said land is convertedinto a criminal prosecution by the respondent No. 3. By pointingout documents in the charge sheet he submitted that sugarcaneregistered in the name of Petitioner No. 3 with Sanganmer SugarFactory from Gut No. 99 at Ganeshwadi was given to that sugarfactory. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioners have stolenthe sugarcane of the informant. He submitted that there isdispute in respect of possession of land Gut No. 150 for whichRegular Civil Suit No. 89 of 2021 is filed by the informant and hismother and brother seeking declaration that they are ownersand possessors of said land and petitioners should not obstructthe peaceful possession of the informant. He further submittedthat by filing written statement the said suit is opposed by thepetitioners. He further submitted that Regular Civil Suit No. 646of 2022 is filed by daughter of Petitioner No. 1 for partition andseparate possession and for a declaration that sale deedexecuted by Petitioner No. 1 in favour of Rajendra Attal is null2(2020) 16 SCC 7143Criminal Appeal No. 3300 of 20254Criminal Appeal No. 2340 of 2023Bhagyawant Punde {5} WP-306-2023and void. He therefore submitted that only with a view topressurize the petitioners in the civil suit they are falselyimplicated in the present crime. He submitted that there is delayin lodging FIR. Since, the civil dispute is going on between theparties, prosecution against the petitioners is liable to bequashed.7.Learned APP and learned advocate for informant/respondent No. 3 strenuously opposed the petition. Theysubmitted that there is sufficient material on record to show theinvolvement of petitioners in the present crime. They pointed outthat sugarcane from the said land was registered by informantwith Mula Sugar Factory in the name of his mother and brother.It is further pointed out that competent Civil Court has issuedinjunction in favour of respondent No. 3 thereby prohibitingpetitioners from interfering in his peaceful possession of theproperty. Since the petitioners breached that injunction,respondent No. 3 has filed second complaint against thepetitioners. The witness who has seen petitioners carrying awaysugarcane from the said land of respondent No. 3 wasthreatened by the petitioners, hence, he has lodged complaintagainst petitioners, which is registered as non cognizable case.Bhagyawant Punde
Legal Reasoning
{6} WP-306-2023There is no merit in the contention of petitioners that this is acivil dispute, which is converted into criminal prosecution. They,therefore, submitted that prima facie there is sufficient materialon record to conduct criminal trial against the petitioners.8.Heard learned advocate for the petitioners, learnedAPP for State and learned advocate for respondent No. 3 atlength. With their assistance we have perused the record andcitations relied upon by the petitioners.9.Record indicates that in the charge sheet, there is astatement of adjacent land owner Sachin Ghavte who has seenthe petitioners cutting sugarcane from the said land ofrespondent No. 3 with the help of harvester and carrying it awayin truck and tractor. There is also a statement of owner ofharvester stating that on 05.05.2021 Petitioner No. 3 came tohim and requested him to harvest his sugarcane from the fieldsituated in Landewadi Shivar as the sugarcane was notharvested by the sugarcane factory as there was disputebetween him and his brother. He wanted harvester for harvestingsugarcane and he intended to sell the sugarcane to SangamnerSugar Factory. Accordingly, he accompanied Petitioner No. 3 tothe sugarcane field. When they started harvesting theBhagyawant Punde {7} WP-306-2023sugarcane, he received a phone call from one Pankaj Jadhavstating that sugarcane field belongs to him and they should notharvest the sugarcane. He threfore left the field. There is also astatement of Rajendra Attal from whom respondent No. 3 haspurchased the said land. He has stated that he has sold the saidland to respondent No. 3 on 17.03.2020 and at the time of sale,sugarcane crop was standing in the said land. The sugarcane ofrespondent No. 3 from the said land was registered with MulaSugar Factory, which is clear from the letter issued by said sugarfactory dated 26.04.2021, wherein it is stated that adjacentagriculturists prevented harvesting of the sugarcane crop,therefore, they have not harvested the crop. The spotpanchnama conducted during the investigation also shows thatsugarcane crop in the said land was harvested. Thus, thereappears prima facie material on record to show that petitionershave taken away the sugarcane crop from the said land.10.We have carefully perused the FIR and materialcollected during the investigation. In our opinion it cannot besaid that FIR does not disclose commission of offence. Whetheror not the allegations made in the FIR are true has to be decidedon the basis of evidence to be led at the trial. There is no suchBhagyawant Punde {8} WP-306-2023inordinate delay in lodging FIR which at this stage can be said tobe fatal to the prosecution. In the facts of the present case,ground of delay in lodging FIR therefore cannot be considered asvalid ground for quashing the FIR against the petitioners.11.There is no merit in the contention of the petitionersthat since there is civil dispute pending between the parties,same is being converted into criminal prosecution by theinformant. It is necessary to mention here that FIR is lodged inthe year 2021 whereas the civil suit is filed subsequently in theyear 2022. While considering the prayer of the petitioners, wecannot conduct mini trial and go into the aspect as to whetherthere is substance in the allegations made in the FIR. We have totake FIR as it is without adding or subtracting anything and tosee whether allegations made in the FIR, prima facie make out acase against the petitioners.12.In Mohd. Khalid Khan (supra) the Apex Court hasobserved that, High Court by relying on prima facie incorrectfacts refused to quash the proceedings. Civil Suit and appealconcerning dispute between the parties related to ownership oflands was pending. Validity of hiba [oral gift] involved in thedispute. In these facts, it was held that at this stage no criminalBhagyawant Punde {9} WP-306-2023case was made out against appellant-accused. Hence,proceedings was quashed.This decision is rendered in different facts. 13.In Govind Kejriwal (supra), cognizance taken in acomplaint case by the Trial Court was quashed holding that, noprima facie case is made out by the complainant therein and thedispute was purely of civil nature.Such are not the facts of the present case.14.In Mohammad Wajid (supra) it was held that,criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be a soleconsideration to decline to quash the criminal proceedings.15.In Urmila Devi (supra) in the facts of that case theSupreme Court did not find that offences of conspiracy tofabricate a forged will after the death of testator, which was thenused to circumvent the sale deed were made out against theaccused/appellant therein. Hence, proceedings in the complaintcase against the appellant therein were quashed.This decision is also rendered in different facts andtherefore is of no help to the petitioners. Bhagyawant Punde {10} WP-306-202316.For the aforestated reasons, we find no merit in thewrit petition. Writ petition is therefore dismissed. Rule isdischarged. (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) Bhagyawant Punde