Judgment 2 apl600.21 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL NO.600 OF 2021 1. Bharat s/o Chhedilal Chaudhary, age: 52 years, occupation: agriculture, r/o Yashoda Nagar No.1, Amravati City, district Amravati. ….. Applicant. :: V E R S U S :: 1. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station officer, Police Station Rajapeth, Amravati City, district Amravati. 2. Dilip s/o Chandrakant Vaidya, aged about 63 years, occupation: business, r/o Samra Nagar, Rajapeth, Amravati, district Amravati, Mobile No.8788638604. ….. Non-applicants. ================================ Shri S.S.Dhengale, Counsel for Applicants. Shri N.B.Jawade, APP for NA No.1/State. ================================ CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATE : 27/02/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent. .....2/- 2026:BHC-NAG:3838-DB Judgment 2 apl600.21 2 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking quashing of FIR in connection with Crime No.503/2021 registered with the non-applicant No.1 police station for offences under Sections 294, 420, and 506(2) read with 34 of the IPC. 3. The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged by non-applicant No.2 (the complainant) on allegations that he has purchased flat Nos.401 and 402 on 19.8.2016 from one Sandip Vithalrao Hedao who runs “Sahil Construction Business.” He has purchased the said flats in the names of his wife and son. Accordingly, he has paid earnest amount of Rs.5.00 lacs for the respective flats. On 19.8.2016, he has executed the terms of Isar Patra on Non Judicial Stamp Paper of Rs.100/-. The complainant, thereafter, paid Rs.10,80,000/- in cash as well as transferred amount Rs.12.00 lacs OnLine in the account of Sandip Hedao. The complainant was given possession of the said flats and it was agreed that out of total consideration amount of Rs.36.00 lacs, remaining amount should be paid on completion of .....3/- Judgment 2 apl600.21 3 some construction work. Thus, he contended that despite he has paid consideration amount, the owner of the said flats has sold out the said flats to the present applicant. On the basis of the said report, the police have registered the crime against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that sale deed is not executed in favour of complainant and, therefore, no right was created in favour of the complainant. As far as the offence against the applicant is concerned, who is subsequent purchaser, even accepting the allegation as it is, no offence is made out against him. In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned APP for the State strongly opposed the said contentions and submitted that considering that though earnest amount was obtained from the complainant, .....4/- Judgment 2 apl600.21 4 flats were sold to the applicant and, therefore, the application deserves to be rejected. 6. On hearing both sides and perusing the entire investigation papers, it reveals that the sale deed was not executed in favour of the complainant and, therefore, no right was created in favour of the complainant. 7. As far as the applicant is concerned, he is subsequent purchaser. By applying ingredients of Section 420 of the IPC, there is nothing on record to show that there was any intention since inception and thereby he has cheated the complainant. Merely because he is subsequent purchaser, he was arrayed as accused in the crime. 8. In this view of the matter, the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order: .....5/- Judgment 2 apl600.21 5 ORDER (1) The Criminal Application is allowed. (2) The FIR in connection with Crime No.503/2021 registered with the non-applicant No.1 police station for offences under Sections 294, 420, and 506(2) read with 34 of the IPC is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of present applicant Bharat s/o Chhedilal Chaudhary. Application stands disposed of. (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) !! BrWankhede !! ...../-