1 25-J-APL-937-2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 937 OF 2021 1]Narendra Indrachand @ Inderkumar Tilokani, Aged about 49, Occ. Business. 2]Shri Dipak Inderchand @ Inderkumar Tilokani, Aged about 45, Occ. Business. Applicant No.1 & 2 both R/o Balaji Ward, Ballarpur, District Chandrapur. 3]Sau. Saloni W/o Ravi Basantwani Aged about 41, Occ. Household, R/o Near Wadhwani House Shivrasik Nagar, Vidarbha Mahavidyalaya, Tah. and Dist. Amravati. ….. APPLICANTS V E R S U S 1.State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Ballarpur. 2.Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Ballarpur, District Chandrapur. 3.Mahendra Rakeshsingh Thakur Aged Major, Occ. Business R/o New Shende Lay-out, Hariom Nagar, Near Bhai-Bhai Niwas, Ramnagar, Chandrapur. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri S. M. Pande, Advocate for applicants. Ms. M. A. Barabde, Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant Nos.1 and 2. Shri Amit Choube, for non-applicant No.3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2026:BHC-NAG:1838-DB 2 25-J-APL-937-2021.doc CORAM: URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATED : 02/02/2026. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The application is preferred by the applicants for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with Crime No.777/2021 registered under Sections 409, 420, 465, 466, 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. 3. The First Information Report came to be registered on the basis of report lodged by non-applicant No.3 namely; Mahendra Rakeshsingh Thakur alleging that the applicants in collusion with the Government Officials have fraudulently mutated their names without any basis. According to the first informant, his great-grand-mother Tilkubai was having landed property in Ballarpur City in City Survey No.288 having area 11.10 sq. mtrs. and the property card was also showing her name as a owner. It is alleged that he opted property card from City Survey Office Ballarpur that the said property was mutated in the name of applicants to the extent of total area 240.61 sq. mtrs. and the mutation entry No.63 was effected to that effect. He made an 3 25-J-APL-937-2021.doc enquiry and according to him, the present applicants with connivance with other Government Officials got mutated their names to the total area of the said City Survey No.288. On the basis of the said report, police have registered a crime against the present applicants. 4. After registration of the crime, present applicants approached this Court with contention that the father of the applicants Indrachand @ Inderkumar Warumal Tilokani acquired part of one house property in parts while three different registered sale deeds in the year 1983 and sought from original owner Tilkubai Thakur and one Sitaram Batra. The father of the applicants applied for mutation of his name as owner in the Record of Rights maintained by the Superintendent of Land Records. The name of Inderkumar Tilokani was mutated and thereafter, the names of present applicants were mutated on 04/11/2019. They are owners to the extent of area 1.20 sq. mtrs. which they have purchased but with the false allegation, the FIR came to be lodged against the present applicants. The entire transaction is of civil in nature. No criminal offence is made out against the present applicants. It is submitted that as far as the offence under Section 409 is concerned which is not attracted as 4 25-J-APL-937-2021.doc Section 409 deals with criminal breach of trust by servant or banker or merchant or agent. The present applicants are not in the said category as far as the offence under Sections 467, 468 and 420 of the IPC is concerned which is not made out. Only dispute appears to be in respect of the area which the forefathers of the applicants have purchased and their names are entered in the Record of Rights incorrectly to the extent of area. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that considering the entire transaction between the present applicants and the non-applicant No.3 which was entered into by their forefathers, no offence is made out and hence, application deserves to be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed for the same and submitted that the intention is apparent on the part of the present applicants that they are involved in the offence under Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC by joining hands with other Government Officials and therefore, application deserves to be rejected. 7. Learned counsel for non-applicant No.3 endorsed the said contention. In addition to that, he submitted that the names 5 25-J-APL-937-2021.doc of the present applicants are mutated to the total area as far as the transaction is concerned which is also not admitted by the non- applicant No.3. There are similar type of offences registered against present applicants. In view of that and considering the prima facie case, the application deserves to be rejected. 8. On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the entire record, it reveals that there is no dispute that the property bearing Survey No.288 total admeasuring 240.61 sq. mtrs. is originally owned by Tilkubai Banwarilal. Out of the said property by sale deed dated 17/02/1983, the father of the present applicants has purchased portion of 49.238 sq. mtrs was purchased for a consideration of amount of Rs.10,500/- then by way of another sale deed dated 04/04/1983, the portion to the extent of 240 sq. mtrs. was purchased by the father of the present applicants. Thus, it is relevant that 1.20 sq. mtrs was purchased by the father of the present applicants out of 240 sq. mtrs. However, while carrying out the mutation, the names of present applicants were entered to the total area. The revenue record shows that the said mutation was carried out after due enquiry. Thus, it is apparent that the dispute is only to the extent of area which was purchased and the mutation was to the total area. To attract offence punishable under 6 25-J-APL-937-2021.doc Section 420 of the IPC, it is necessary to establish that there was intention since inception to attract the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. The ingredients of the offence of cheating described in Section 415 is that “whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". 9. To hold a person guilty of cheating as defined under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise with an intention to retain the property. 10. In view of the above observations, if the facts of the present case are taken into consideration, admittedly, the sale deed on record shows that father of applicants has purchased some portion of their property i.e. Survey No.288 situated at Ballarpur. The dispute apparent is to the extent of area. Thus, considering the entire dispute which is arising out of record is that which is of 7 25-J-APL-937-2021.doc civil nature. As far as the intention and preparation of the forged document is concerned, the recitals of the FIR are silent about the same. 11. Considering the nature of the dispute which appears to be civil in nature and therefore, continuing the criminal proceedings against the present applicants would be an abuse of process of law. 12. In view of that, the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the guidelines the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised. “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 8 25-J-APL-937-2021.doc (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 13. In the light of the above observations, facts of the present case are considered and the allegations levelled in the FIR. Admittedly, no offence is made out against the present applicants to proceed with the trial. 14. In that circumstances, the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order :- ORDER i] The application is allowed. 9 25-J-APL-937-2021.doc ii] The FIR in connection with Crime No.777/2021 registered under Sections 409, 420, 465, 466, 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of the IPC is hereby quashed and set aside against the present applicants. 15. The application is disposed of. [JUDGE] Choulwar