Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 784 (BOM)

Suresh Eknathrao Kale v. State of Maharashtra

2015-03-19

A.B.CHAUDHARI, P.N.DESHMUKH

body2015
JUDGMENT : A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Following are the prayers made by the applicant: "(i) the FIR/Crime No. 48/2011, registered at Police Station Nandgaonpeth, Amravati against the applicant for the alleged offences punishable under sections 406, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all the consequential proceedings arising thereof may kindly be quashed in the interest of justice. (i-a) the FIR/Crime No. 48/2011 registered by Police Station Nandgaonpeth, Amravati against the applicant for the alleged offences punishable under Section 406, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Final Report/Charge Sheet No. 16/2013 dated 2nd April 2013 filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class No. 8, Amravati by the non-applicant No. 1 Police Station, Nandgaonpeth, Dist. Amravati against the applicant alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 420, 506 of Indian Penal Code, my kindly be quashed, in the interest of justice." We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties. We have perused the FIR In question. Since the chargesheet has been filed, we have also read statement of the complainant under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. recorded by police. On perusal of the FIR, what we find is that in the year 1985, the applicant was designated as Chief Promoter of Cooperative Housing Society of the employees working under various Government organizations. The complainant was working in MSRTC. Accordingly, being the Chief Promoter for the society, the applicant purchased a field at Rahatgaon nearby Amravati town in the year 1985. The FIR further alleges that in the year 1985 itself a sum of Rs. 1,000/- in cash was collected by applicant from about 92 members. He further alleges in the FIR that the plots were allotted by draw of lot of plots admeasuring 2000 sq.ft. Plot No. 40 was allotted to him and was also asked to come for execution of the sale deed by the applicant on 08.01.1988 and was also asked to deposit the entire remaining amount by 07.01.1988. It is further stated in the FIR that due to the personal reason, the complainant could not go to get the sale deed executed on 08.01.1988 and has conveyed his inability to the applicant on which the applicant assured him that he can execute the sale deed later on. But thereafter he did not execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant. But thereafter he did not execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant. It is further alleged that though the complainant parted with the total amount of Rs. 8000/-, still he was not given the plot nor membership fee was returned to him. 2. During investigation, the police recorded statement of complainant on 05.01.2011. We have perused the said statement. The statement clearly shows that the complainant could not remain present for getting the sale deed executed in his favour due to his personal reason on 24.12.1985 and that he was asked to execute the sale deed on 08.01.1988 by making entire payment on 07.01.1988 but again he had personal difficulty and, therefore, he could not send money and could not deposit money and left it as it was. In the statement, it is further stated that thereafter, as late as on 12.12.2002, he sent notice that he wants to purchase the plot. Thus from 1988 to 2002 he did not even think of asking for sale deed to be executed from the Chief Promoter and he again woke up from his deep slumber in January 2011 after 9 years and sent his son to the applicant demanding execution of sale deed. According to the applicant, son of the complainant misbehaved with him of which he had lodged to the police report and as a counter blast of the same, report was lodged by the complainant. 3. We have considered the matter in the whole background. We have seen the FIR as well as statement of complainant under section 161 of Cr. P.C. We are satisfied that the complainant is trying to convert a purely civil dispute into a criminal charge against the applicant and that is clear from the facts narrated by us above. As a matter of fact, it was the complainant who must be blamed for his total inaction and for not availing the opportunity to purchase the plot from the society. He lost all the opportunities of purchasing the plots at the remote time and now, after several years, lodged FIR obviously with a mala fide intention to harass the applicant. 4. We, therefore, find that this is a case of abuse of process of law and clearly falls within the parameters of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajanlal and others; 1992 Supp. 4. We, therefore, find that this is a case of abuse of process of law and clearly falls within the parameters of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajanlal and others; 1992 Supp. (1) 335. In view of above, we pass the following order. "ORDER (i) Criminal Application (APL) No. 406/2012 is allowed. (ii) Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i) and (ia) of the application."