Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 312 (BOM)

Satish Soma Bhole v. Pravin Chandrabhan Wagh

2009-03-06

S.S.SHINDE

body2009
Judgment : 1. This application is filed for quashing the complaint registered as R.C,C. No.210/2000 of J.M.F.C.Erandol District Jalgaon. 2. Background facts of the case are as under: That, he resides at Jalgaon. He owned plot no.4 in land S.No.91/2 of village Nimkhedi Bk. Tq. Dist.Jalgaon. The area of this piece of land as per record is 881.5 sq. meters. The respondent no.1 and his associates wanted to purchase the same. After full verification they agreed to purchase this piece of land with the boundaries as on spot for lum-sum amount of Rs.92,000/- by registered sale deed dated 31.7.1991. After it they got their name recorded in the revenue record. At any point the respondent no.1 never raised any grievance on any point in respect of this plot. That on 20.11.2000 the respondent no.1 filed Reg.Cr. case No.210/2000 in court of J.M.F.C. Erandol Dist.Jalgaon for offences punishable under sections 406/420 I.P.C. The respondent no.1 alleged that on 5.5.2000 the Asstt. Director of Town Planning, Jalgaon, corrected the record and send it to Collector, Jalgaon. It was also alleged that on taking information from the record of A.D.T.P. Office , it was revealed that the area of the plot was 746.62 sq.meters. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the J.M.F.C. has issued the process without applying his mind and without looking to the fact that he has no jurisdiction in this matter to issue process, as no part of transaction took place within his jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the jurisdiction of the J.M.F.C.Erandol is confined only to revenue taluka of Erandol and he has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. On the face of the complaint no evidence is disclosed against the applicant. The criminal complaint is filed with malafide intention and ulterior motive to blackmail the applicant. The dispute in the complaint is of civil nature. The order passed by the J.M.F.C. is without jurisdiction. Any further proceedings on the basis of the aforesaid complaint would be abuse of process of Court. 4. The criminal complaint is filed with malafide intention and ulterior motive to blackmail the applicant. The dispute in the complaint is of civil nature. The order passed by the J.M.F.C. is without jurisdiction. Any further proceedings on the basis of the aforesaid complaint would be abuse of process of Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the original sale deed if perused carefully, there is no mention that the rates agreed between the applicant and complainant are per square feet or per square meter and agreement entered between the parties and subsequent sale deed was lump-sum amount paid by the complainant and the total area of land mentioned in the said document to be handed over to the complainant. According to learned counsel, the possession of the suit property is handed over to the applicant in pursuant to the sale deed dated 31.7.1991. In the said sale deed the area of plot no.4 is mentioned as 881.5 sq.mtrs. According to learned counsel, there is no question of any cheating or preparing any false document or forging any document. The transaction was in clear terms and everything was mentioned in the sale deed and, therefore, no offence is committed by the applicant. According to learned counsel, the complainant had taken possession of the said plot in the year 1991. The present complaint is filed in 2000 which is hopelessly belated and the J.M.F.C. should have rejected the complaint on the ground of delay itself. The learned counsel would submit that, the complainant if at all he was aggrieved should have measured the land when he was put in possession and he cannot file the complaint after 11 years to harass the applicant. The amount agreed between the parties i.e. applicant and complainant towards the payment of suit property was lump-sum and there was no agreement to pay on the basis of square ft. or square mtr. The sum and substance of the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that firstly the J.M.F.C. who had issued the process had no jurisdiction to issue the process, the sale deed nowhere mentions that, there was agreement between the applicant and complainant to pay on the basis of square mtr. or square ft. or square mtr. The sum and substance of the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that firstly the J.M.F.C. who had issued the process had no jurisdiction to issue the process, the sale deed nowhere mentions that, there was agreement between the applicant and complainant to pay on the basis of square mtr. or square ft. and lump-sum amount was paid to the applicant, the complaint is lodged after 11 years which is hopelessly barred by law of Limitation and if at all the applicant was aggrieved he should have measured the land at the time of taking possession and for all these reasons it is not open for the complainant to file the false complaint just to harass the applicant. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the applicant has cheated the complainant showing and executing the document of demarcation of plot. The applicant has executed the document of plot admeasuring 881.5 sq.mtrs. but in fact on actual measurement the land is only 746.62 sq.mtrs. 6. He further submitted that the lower Court after considering the documents in materials and on verification, issued the process against the applicant under sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C. He further submitted that applicant had efficacious remedy for filing revision and in support of his contention he relied on reported judgment of this High Court, reported in 2005(3) Mh.L.J. page 778, 2007(2) Mh.L.J. page 859 and 2003(2) Mh.L.J. page 813. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that this Court may not entertain this application. 7. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the applicant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent, I am of the considered view that this application deserves to be allowed. 8. Firstly, it is not clear from the averments of the complainant that whether the concerned J.M.F.C. has jurisdiction to issue the process. 7. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the applicant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent, I am of the considered view that this application deserves to be allowed. 8. Firstly, it is not clear from the averments of the complainant that whether the concerned J.M.F.C. has jurisdiction to issue the process. Secondly, the agreement or sale deed was executed between applicant and respondent in 1991, the complaint is filed in 2000 and same is hopelessly time barred; thirdly the allegations in the complaint are of civil nature; fourthly, if at all the complainant was diligent and alert he should have got the land measured when he took possession of the land; fifthly, on perusal of the photo copy of the agreement/sale deed, which is made available by the advocate for the applicant, it is clear that, the agreed amount between the parties was lumpsum i.e., Rs.92000/- and rate was not prescribed on the basis of square mtr. or square ft.; sixthly, if at all complainant is aggrieved he can take civil remedy. After 11 years of alleged transaction, the applicant cannot be put on criminal trial when the alleged transaction was signed by the complainant with open eyes and in pursuant to the said deed he was put in possession of the said property. 9. Coming to the next contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that remedy of revision is available to the applicant, I am of the view that, that does not bar this Court from exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Moreover, this Court issued Rule in this matter on 2nd April 2002 and interim relief in terms of prayer clause ’C’ was granted in favour of the applicant. 10. For all these reasons, I am of the considered view that any further proceedings on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant would be abuse of process of Court and, therefore, this application deserves to be allowed. 11. The Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "B". The complaint registered as R.C.C.No.210/2000 pending before J.M.F.C. Erandol District Jalgaon is quashed and any further proceedings arising out of the said case are also quashed and set aside. The application is allowed and disposed of.