Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1045 (BOM)

Bhumanna Piraji Narod v. State of Maharashtra

2011-08-18

A.H.JOSHI, A.R.JOSHI

body2011
JUDGMENT A.H. JOSHI, J. :- Rule. Rule is made returnable and heard parties at length. 2. Heard both sides at length. 3. In this petition the petitioner is praying for quashing the first information report lodged by the respondent No.2. 4. Copy of the written report furnished before Police Station, which is treated as first information report, is on record age Pages 15 and 16. 5. Learned Advocate Shri Katneshwarkar took us through the record and the various judgments he relied upon as a foundation for the relief which he has prayed. 6. The substance of the contention of learned Advocate Shri Katneshwarkar, is summarised as follows: (1) The contents of the first information report do not disclose commission of offence. (2) Though the document allegedly forged is said to have been prepared by the petitioner, it cannot be demonstrated by the respondent No.2 that said alleged forged document is used in order to divest the ownership or title to the complaint or vest it in the petitioner. (3) Unless and until wrongful loss to the complainant is shown the complaint for cheating and for forgery for that purpose, cannot be entertained and hence the registration of crime is without any foundation, in fact and in law. (4) Name of petitioner's son still continues in ownership column in the Revenue records of the land of which forged consent of the respondent No.2 is allegedly obtained. (5) FIR results in abuse of process of law and hence it deserves to be quashed. 7. Apart from the repeated reading out of the contents of the complaint by learned Advocate Shri Katneshwarkar, we have again scrutinised the contents of the first information report. 8. Petitioner has relied upon revenue record of land subject matter to show the fact that in the Revenue record maintained in form 7/12 which is at Annexture "B" at Page 17, name of Dattu Mogalaji i.e. son of the respondent No.2 is shown in the ownership column. 9. We have perused the Memorandum of partition, which is Annexture "D" at Page 25 onwards. In clause "R" thereof a recital relating to the property Sy. No. 41/A/2 exists. It contains a recital that in the name of Mogalaji, though he does not have title and said land shall go to the share of signatory No.2 of the document, namely Bhumanna the petitioner is very well recited. 10. In clause "R" thereof a recital relating to the property Sy. No. 41/A/2 exists. It contains a recital that in the name of Mogalaji, though he does not have title and said land shall go to the share of signatory No.2 of the document, namely Bhumanna the petitioner is very well recited. 10. Petitioner does not dispute that he is the beneficiary of the Memorandum of partition which consists of recital that land S.No.4l/A/2 which land stands in the name of the son of the respondent No.2, though it was not owned by the Respondent No.2 and was actually owned by family of other signatories of said memorandum and the respondent No.2 has signed the said document as a consenting party for allotment of said land to plaintiff Bhumanna present petitioner, who is one of the signatories of the Memorandum of partition. 11. Copy of the consent terms filed in Special Civil Suit No.68 of 201l as part of annexure "F" at Page 43 of paper book is Exhibit 16 of trial Court record. This annexure contains a recital in its clause (r) which is replica of recital in the Memorandum of Partition about land Sy.No.41/A/2. 12. Considering the entirety of the matter, notwithstanding the fact that the parties to the Special Civil Suit No.68 of 2011 have settled the dispute, Petitioner Bhumann, Narode proceeds on belief and claim that he shall be henceforth the owner of land Sy.No.41/A/2 (which is owned by son of the respondent No.2.) based on consent executed by Respondent no.2 and his kins. The statement to that effect contained in consent terms corresponds to the Memorandum of Partition. 13. The facts narrated in the foregoing paras are obvious and hence are inescapable for the petitioner to say that the partition document to which respondent No.2 is shown as a signatory, which signature he denies, and his son's name continues on record is of no consequences. 14. Respondent Nos.2’s plea that his signature is forged is duly pleaded and it answers the ingredients of offences alleged. Petitioner relies on the consent terms which do confirm acquisition of title by the petitioner. Petitioner cannot blow hot and cold at the same time to urge that he has got the title yet the Respondent No.2 is not divested of it. 15. Petitioner relies on the consent terms which do confirm acquisition of title by the petitioner. Petitioner cannot blow hot and cold at the same time to urge that he has got the title yet the Respondent No.2 is not divested of it. 15. On scrutinising the complaint from any angle, what is clear is that it describes the ingredients of commission of offence by the accused persons adequately. 16. Since. we are satisfied that the contents of the complaint do adequately describe the commission of offence and it has also demonstrated that such divesting of title of the Respondent No.2 has occurred in the point of view of the accused persons, the complaint deserves investigation and we are satisfied that there are no grounds whatsoever for quashing the complaint. 17. The case law relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is besides the issue involved, and it is of no gain to narrate anything in that regard. We therefore skip the discussion thereon. 18. We, therefore. dismiss this application. 19. Rule accordingly stands discharged. No order as to costs. Application dismissed.