Diksha w/o Siddahath Chitte Diksha Devrao Waghmare v. 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station, Loha Police Station, District Nanded
Case Details
2025:BHC-AUG:25918-DB appln-4395-2024.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4395 OF 2024 Diksha w/o Siddahath Chitte Diksha Devrao Waghmare Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station, Loha Police Station, District Nanded. .. Applicant 2. Mahananda w/o Bapurao Chitte .. Respondents
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Anand V. Indrale Patil, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. A. M. Phule, APP for respondent No.1/State. Mr. D. M. Shinde, Advocate for respondent No.2. … ... CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ. DATE : 15 SEPTEMBER 2025 ORDER (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) :- . Present application has been filed for quashing the FIR vide Crime No.253 of 2024 dated 17.07.2024 registered with Loha Police Station, District Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned APP submits that the charge-sheet has not yet been filed. Under such circumstance, certainly, the application can be entertained under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. [1] appln-4395-2024.odt 3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Anand V. Indrale Patil for the petitioner, learned APP Mr. A. M. Phule for respondent No.1/State and learned Advocate Mr. D. M. Shinde for respondent No.2. 4. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that respondent No.2 informant is the mother-in-law of the applicant. Husband of the applicant was working at Government Polytechnic College, Hingoli as Laboratory Assistant. He was expired on 07.04.2021 while discharging his duties during Covid-19 pandemic situation. The applicant had received amount of Rs.53,60,000/- towards Corona Shield Insurance Policy from the Government. In the FIR vide Crime No.253 of 202, respondent No.2 alleged that the present applicant had obtained heirship certificate from Civil Judge Junior Division, Loha by filing Civil Miscellaneous Application No.123 of 2021. The children of the applicant were party to the said application, however, the informant was not made as party i.e. mother of the deceased. Respondent No.2’s husband i.e. father-in-law of the applicant is ill with paralysis since 12 years. By suppressing the said fact, that amount was withdrawn by the applicant, thereby the Court was cheated and her 1/3rd share to the extent of Rs.17,86,666/- was deprived on the strength of fabricated heirship certificate. In Anticipatory Bail Application No.1346 of 2024 filed by the applicant before this Court, there was compromise between the applicant and informant. The applicant had paid amount of Rs.17,86,666/- to the informant. This Court [2] appln-4395-2024.odt by order dated 09.09.2024 allowed the said application on the basis of said compromise. The terms of compromise were taken on record and marked as Exhibit- ‘X’. In view of the same, the FIR now deserves to be quashed and set aside. There was absolutely no intention to cheat the mother-in-law. It cannot be stated that there was cheating on the Court and if at all it is there, there has to be a complaint by the concerned Court and not by the informant. The judicial order has been passed which could have been then challenged by the informant before the Appellate forum or she could have filed application/suit for recovery of her due share. It cannot be stated that the certificate that was issued by the Court in favour of the applicant is forged or fabricated. 5. Per contra, the learned APP as well as learned Advocate for respondent No.2 strongly opposed the application and submitted that intentionally there is suppression of existence of mother-in-law, who was one of the sharers or heirs of deceased Siddharth. The informant was then required to approach the police as well as the Appellate forum when such certificate was obtained. Learned Advocate for respondent No.2 submits that now it has been transpired that her share is not restricted to Rs.17,86,666/-, but certain more amount is due or whatever the amount has been received by the applicant subsequent to the withdrawn of the compensation amount in that also, her share has not been given and, therefore, intention to cheat is since beginning. [3] appln-4395-2024.odt 6. It is not in dispute that due to the sad demise of Siddharth Bapurao Chitte in Covid-19 pandemic situation, when he was on duty, the Government has given amount of Rs.53,60,000/-. It appears that in order to get that amount the applicant had filed application for heirship certificate along with two children to which present respondent No.2 was not party. A statement appears to have been made that they i.e. the applicant and her two children were the only legal heirs who have been left by deceased Siddharth. Concerned Court has granted the certificate on 30.08.2021, however, in the FIR itself it is stated that the said certificate was challenged in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.73 of 2024 and stay was granted. By that time, it appears that the amount was withdrawn. Now, it is also not in dispute that when the applicant approached this Court for anticipatory bail, compromise had taken place and then the applicant had paid amount of Rs.17,86,666/- to her. In the said compromise terms, there are also other stipulations. What is transpiring is that Miscellaneous Civil Application No.47 of 2024 was filed by the informant before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Loha for alleged perjury by the applicant. That means, respondent No.2 had made same allegations in the FIR and then on the same set of facts, Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.47 of 2024 was filed. It was then stated in the terms of compromise that the informant and her husband would give NOC for receiving the amount of service benefits by the [4] appln-4395-2024.odt applicant and her son and it was then treated as settlement, when that amount was paid by the applicant to respondent No.2. The compromise got reflected in the order of this Court on 09.09.2024 as it was read and recorded. Under such circumstance, the FIR was limited for her 1/3rd share to the extent of Rs.17,86,666/-, which she received and she compromised the matter. It would be a futile exercise to allow the investigation to go on. 7. On merits of the case also, it can be stated that the case was in respect of receipt of compensation amount and the mother could have filed the application or legal proceedings to get back her share. Even if it can be stated that the heirship certificate is issued, yet it does not amount to take away the rights of the informant. The certificate has been issued by the Court and on the basis of the said certificate, withdrawal of the amount has been allowed by the college authorities, therefore, there was no question of fabrication of documents that too with common intention. Therefore, on merits also, this is a fit case where we should exercise our powers under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Hence, the following order :-
Decision
ORDER I) Criminal Application stands allowed. [5] appln-4395-2024.odt II) The FIR vide Crime No.253 of 2024 dated 17.07.2024 registered with Loha Police Station, District Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code stands quashed and set aside as against the present applicant. [ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] JUDGE [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE scm [6]