apl699.2022.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 699 OF 2022 APPLICANTS : 1) Dr. Sau. Vidya w/o Sahebrao Ingale, Aged about 48 years, Occu: Practice. 2) Dr. Sahebrao s/o Narayan Ingale, Aged about 52 years, Occu: Medical Practitioner (Govt) Both r/o at Post Ner Parsopant, Tahsil Ner Parsopant, District Yavatmal. ..VERSUS.. NON- APPLICANTS : 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Near Parsopant, Tah. Ner Parsopant, Dist. Yavatmal. 2) Shankar s/o Narayanrao Ingale, Aged about 50 Years, Occu: Private, R/ o Bahiram Nagar, Ner Parsopant, Tah. Ner Parsopant, Dist. Yavatmal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Manoj A. Sable, counsel for applicants. Ms S.V. Kolhe, APP for non-applicant/State Mr J.S. Chilotra, counsel for non-applicant No.2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATE OF RESERVE : 12 /0 2 /2026 DATE OF DECISION : 20 /02/2026 JUDGMENT : rkn 2026:BHC-NAG:3072 apl699.2022.odt 2 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of Mr. Manoj A. Sable, counsel for applicants, Ms S.V. Kolhe, learned APP for non-applicant/State and Mr. J.S. Chilotra, learned counsel for non- applicant No.2, the application is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2. This application came to be filed at the instance of applicants, who are sister-in-law and real brother of non-applicant No.2. In the present case, non-applicant No.2 lodged a police complaint on 28/09/2022 against his mother and brothers, alleging that, despite he being a legal heir of late Narayan, his brother and mother has prepared a false affidavit and fabricated the documents by not mentioning his name as one of the legal heirs of late Narayan. He further alleged that, by suppressing this fact, they mutated their names in the immovable property bearing Plot No. 587, Sheet No. 5 for total area ad-measuring 41.49 Sq.Ft. 3. On the basis of this complaint, the police machinery conducted an investigation in the matter and collected the relevant record and filed Chargesheet bearing No. 78 of 2022 against the present applicants, and consequently Regular Criminal Case No. 156/2025 is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nerparsopant, for offence punishable under Sections, 420, 468, 424, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4. In the present case, although the complaint was lodged by non-applicant No.2 against his mother, all brothers, and the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Nerparsopant, the applicants herein are elder brother and sister-in-law of the Non-applicant No.2. rkn apl699.2022.odt 3 5. Considering the allegations made by the non-applicant No.2 in the matter, I have perused the original complaint lodged against the applicants. From this complaint, certain undisputed facts are necessary to be recorded in the present matter. In the present case, Late Nararyan Ingale was expired on 01/1/2014. According to the complainant, in the year 2008, late Narayna allotted one plot to him and also paid Rs.50,000/- for construction. Accordingly, by obtaining some loan from Ner Urban Cooperative Bank, he has constructed the two rooms on the said plot. 6. It is also admitted fact that the complainant left the company of the present applicants and started residing separately. He further stated that late Narayan Ingale always used to say that, after partition of the property, he will get his share, and one shop was also given to him. After this allotment of property in favour of complainant, he expired on 01/01/2014. 7. As per the complainant, the applicants, and more particularly his brother Raju Ingale and mother Yashodha Ingale, prepared a false and bogus affidavit, and also obtained a false legal heirs certificate, and produced it before the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Ner, thereby effecting mutation in the property. 8. It is alleged that, while preparing the affidavit by the applicants, they have also not recorded the name of their sister namely Sau. Rekha Ranjeet Ingale, on the ground that she had already paid huge amount by the applicants. On the basis of these allegations, the investigation was started in the matter. 9. It is pertinent to note that in the present case, the applicants are Dr. Sau Vidhya Sahebrao Ingale and Dr. Sahebrao Narrayan Ingale. I rkn apl699.2022.odt 4 have perused the investigation papers to ascertain the role attributed to these applicants in the matter. 10. From the perusal of the record, it is seen that the application for getting legal heirs certificate from the Magistrate under the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code was made by Raju Nararyan Ingale on 13/07/2020. Accordingly, the Nagar Parishd, Yavatmal, issued a legal heirs certificate in the name of Yashodabai Narayan Ingale, Raju Narayan Ingale, Sanjay Narayan Ingale, and Saheb Narayanrao Ingale dated 02/07/2020. 11. After receipt of this legal heirs certificate, the affidavit was prepared by Raju Nararyan Ingale dated 02/07/2020. In the said affidavit, it is clear that only the name of Yashodabai and Raju Narayan Ingale are recorded as a legal heirs in a typing script. However, the name of Sanjay Narayanrao Ingale and Saheb Narayanrao Ingale, are recorded by ink pen. The signatures on affidavit shows that name of Raju Inglae, Yashodbai Ingale, was in a typing script but name of Sahebrao Ingale and Sanjay Ingale, are hand written having their signatures against their name. Except this document, there is no other document is shown to have been prepared by the present applicants to get mutate their names in the land record. All the documents which are collected by investigatng officer are seems to be prepared by Raju Ingale and Smt Yashodabai Ingale, who are not parties to the present proceedings. 12. The submission made by present applicants before this Court is that in the present matter, the non-applicant No.2 Shankar and their sister namely Rekha was already given their shares in the property during life time of their father. Therefore, their names were not recorded in the documents which they have prepared for the purpose of of partition of the property. In support of this submission, they have relied upon the rkn apl699.2022.odt 5 communication dated 09/08/2021 collected by the investigating officer during the investigation. The perusal of this communication also demonstrates the fact that as they were not aware the consequences of not recording the name of non-applicant No.2, and the mistake has been committed of their part, however, they have no objection to record the name of non-applicant No.2 as a legal heir of deceased Narayan. 13. After perusal of this document, non-applicant No.2, who was present in the Court, was asked whether at present his name is mutated in the property card or not. He stated that, after filing of the complaint, his name is now recorded in the property card. 14. In the light of this factual position, the issue which needs to be considered is whether the offence under Sections 420, 468, 424 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860IPC are made out against the present applicants or not. 15. In respect of Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has time and again made it clear that to attract the offence under this provisions, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making false or misleading representation i.e. from the inception. Therefore, it is necessary to consider whether such intention from the date of inception of the present applicants is prima-facie seen from the facts of the present case. In my opinion, the applicants were intending to mutate the property in their names, because the share in the name of Non-applicant No.2 and sister namely Rekha was given during the life time of the father. Hence, it cannot be said that, there was any criminal intention of the present applicants to deceive the present non-applicant No.2 in the matter. rkn apl699.2022.odt 6 16. It is also pertinent to note that the provision of Indian Penal Code, 1860, particularly under Sections 420 and 424, clearly state that if there is cheating and dishonest inducement for delivery of property to any person by the accused then the offence is attracted in the matter. In the present case, it would be relevant to consider the fact that the non- applicant Nos. 2 has only put his signature in support of getting the legal heir certificate, which was subsequently used for mutation of entries. As per the settled principals of law, the entries in the revenue or property records are basically for revenue purposes and do not, by themselves, constitute title to the property in favour of any person. Therefore, when the document which is alleged to have been prepared is itself not create any title in favour of any person in relation to the immovable property. In my opinion, the offence under Sections 420 and 424 of IPC, which are specifically deal with the intention to deceive in respect of property is not attracted in the matter. 17. Furthermore, the role attributed to the present applicant No.2 is only to the extent that he has put signature to the affidavit prepared by his other brother namely Raju Ingale. It is not the case of complainant that any specific role is attributed to the applicant No.2 or with a criminal intention, he has prepared any document in the matter. 18. In the present case, it is not the allegation against the present applicants that they have dishonestly and fraudulently removes any property of the non-applicant No.2. Hence, considering the fact that for obtaining the legal heirs certificate, the applicant No.2 put his signature. In my opinion, do not attract the rigor of Section 424 against the present applicant No.2. 19. In respect of applicant no.1, there are no allegations of any kind to attract the Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations rkn apl699.2022.odt 7 against her was not treating the wife of non-applicant No.2 properly and harassing her. Except this there are no allegations against the present applicant No.1 in the matter. In respect of applicant No.1, there are no any allegation of any dishonest or fraudulent or concealment of property. Therefore, in absence of these allegations, no offence is made out against the applicant No.1. 20. In respect of offence under Section 468 of the IPC, the necessary ingredients is that such forgery must have been committed for the purpose of cheating. Once this Court has held that the offence under Section 420 of IPC of cheating is not made out against the applicant No.2, consequently Section 468 of the IPC is not attracted in the matter. Thus, in my opinion, the offence under Sections 420, 424 and 468 is not made out against the applicants in the matter. 21. It is also pertinent to note that, if this allegations of the applicants are looked into minutely, it will be clear that there is a property dispute between the brothers and the mother of applicant No.2. In this context, considering this fact, it will be relevant to refer the view expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Mahmood Ali and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2023) 15 SCC 488 in para-12 and 13 as under:- “12. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance etc. then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. rkn apl699.2022.odt 8 13. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation.” 22. In view of this proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, I have minutely perused the entire record and found that it is not the case that applicants and their brothers has prepared the document with an intention to discard the right of non-applicant No.2 from the property. So also, from the complaint of non-applicant No.2, it is clear that he himself has stated that his father during his lifetime, has allotted him one plot and one shop. Hence, it can be state that under bonafide impression, the applicant along with Non-applicant No.2 also not recorded the name of their sister in the legal heirs certificate obtained by them. Therefore, considering this factual position, it cannot be said that with a criminal intention, the legal heirs certificate was prepared in the matter. 23. Furthermore, no specific role is attributed nor any allegation against to the present applicant No.1 for preparing such documents. Hence, in my opinion, non-applicant No.2 with oblique motive and to give colour of criminal offence to the civil dispute which is existing between the parties, lodged the complaint against applicants. 24. Hence, in my opinion, continuing of criminal proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court of law. Therefore, interference of this Court is necessary in the matter. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order. rkn apl699.2022.odt 9 ORDER a] The application is allowed. b] The proceedings bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 156 of 2025 dated 15/12/2025, pending before the learned Magistrate Ner Parsopant along with Chargesheet No. 172 of 2025 dated 13/12/2025, in Crime No. 78 of 2022, dated 28/02/2022, for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 424 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are hereby quashed and set aside against present applicants only. 25. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No orders as to costs. (PRAVIN S. PATIL, J) rkn