- 1 - criappln2137.23.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 934 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2137 OF 2023 Laxman Sopan Mamadge ….Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another …..Respondents Mr. H. P. Randhir, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. A. R. Kale, APP for the State. Mr. A. R. Rathod, Advocate for the informant. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2026. PER COURT : 1. Applicant seeks quashment of First Information Report bearing Crime No. 0097/2023 registered with Murud Police Station, Tq. & District Latur for offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 447, 427 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and consequential charge- sheet No. 66/2023 filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur. 2. First Information Report indicates that the informant, who claims himself to be the owner of entire Gat No. 69 on the basis of purchase of the same from the erstwhile owner, claims that on 14.05.2017 in respect of 40 R land agreement to sale was executed - 2 - criappln2137.23.odt with the original owner. He claims that on payment of Rs. 1,35,000/- he came into possession of the said property. There is allegation that on 06.10.2022, the same property is sold by the owner to the present Applicant by executing registered sale-deed in his favour. Informant alleges that on 25.11.2022, Applicant encroached in his property. On the basis of these allegations, report came to be lodged. It was investigated and culminated into filing of charge-sheet. 3. Applicant is the purchaser of the said property. According to him, first informant had entered into agreement to sale on 14.05.2017 in respect of 40 R land however, no sale-deed was executed thereafter. It is his submission that in any case, there is no allegation against the present Applicant of committing any offence since he has lawfully purchased the subject property under registered sale-deed from original owner. It is also submitted that prior to purchase of the said property, public notice was issued in that regard. According to him, even if all the allegations are accepted to be true, no offence is made out against the Applicant. - 3 - criappln2137.23.odt 4. Learned APP and learned Counsel for the informant opposed grant of any relief to the Applicant. It is the contention of learned Counsel for the informant that that the entire gat No. 69 was purchased by the informant and nothing remains to be sold from the said land. It is his submission that the present Applicant in collusion with the co-accused i.e. original owner of the said land has got the sale-deed executed in his favour. This, according to him, amounts offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. 5. Prima facie perusal of the First Information Report indicates that it is the case of the informant that on 14.05.2017 agreement to sale was entered into in respect of purchase of 40 R land. However, admittedly, there is no sale-deed executed by the original owner in his favour with regard to the said land. There is no dispute about the fact that after issuance of public notice with regard to the intention of the Applicant to purchase the said property, registered sale-deed came to be executed by owner in his favour of 06.10.2022. Further, there is no prima facie substance in the contention that 40R land was not available for sale from Gat No. 69. This contention cannot be accepted in view of the case of the informant that he entered into - 4 - criappln2137.23.odt agreement to sale in respect of the said property with the original owner. 6. In any case, present Applicant apparently seems to be the bonafide purchaser of the land in question. No offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code gets attracted against him. As far as offence under Sections 406, 447, 427 of Indian Penal Code are concerned, there is no evidence against the Applicant. Even if the entire evidence on record is accepted to be true, it fails to make out any case against the Applicant. Hence, application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’, ‘B-A’ and ‘B-B’. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) dyb