cria-399.24 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.399 OF 2024 1) Lilabai Kacharulal Lodha, Age-75 years, Occu:Nil, 2) Popat Kacharulal Lodha, Age-58 years, Occu:Business, 3) Sanjay Kacharulal Lodha, Age-55 years, Occu:Business, All R/o-Pari Matchwell, Tilak Road, Dhondipura, Beed, Taluka and District-Beed. ...APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through In Charge, Shivajinagar Police Station, Beed, District-Beed. 2) Pratibha Shripati Chaure, Age-44 years, Occu:Household, R/o-Adharsh Ganesh Nagar, Nagar Road, Shivajinagar, Beed, Taluka and District-Beed. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Mohit R. Malpani Advocate for Applicant. Mr. G.A. Kulkarni, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. None present for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 12th JUNE, 2025 2025:BHC-AUG:15088-DB cria-399.24 2 ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] : 1. Present Application has been filed, initially for quashing the First Information Report (for short “the FIR”) vide Crime No.6 of 2024 registered with Shivajinagar Police Station, District-Beed, on 4th January 2024, for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and then by way of amendment, for quashing the proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.620 of 2024 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Beed. 2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Malpani for the applicants, learned APP Mr. Kulkarni for respondent No.1. Learned Advocate for respondent No.2 is absent. 3. With the help of learned Advocate for the applicants as well as learned APP, we have gone through the record. The informant is the purchaser of row-house from the applicants. She contends that it was promised by the applicants that they would give the facility of electricity, water connection, electric motor and other facilities. It is stated that even the advertisement before she had purchased the row-house was in respect of ready possession and cria-399.24 3 after considering all these aspects, she entered into sale-deed on 4th April 2022. However, when the informant told applicant No.1 that she wants to move in the row-house and the facilities should be made available, at that time the applicants avoided and no facilities as agreed have been provided. Therefore, according to the informant, she has been cheated and there is misappropriation. 4. The contents of the charge-sheet would show that statements of witnesses have been recorded. Witness Prashant Chaure is real brother of informant, witness Tanhaji Kekan is the cousin brother of the informant and there are communications between the investigating officer and the municipal authorities, Beed, regarding whether any sanction was there for the facilities and it was informed that no such application for sanction of the facilities has ever been made. 5. Taking into consideration the entire documents, it can be seen that the dispute is of civil nature. The remedy was in the suit for specific performance, if at all there was even the oral promise. However, the learned Advocate for the applicants points out that in the sale-deed it is specifically mentioned that it would cria-399.24 4 be the job of the informant to get the facilities sanctioned from the appropriate authorities. It has been stated that:- “lnj jks&gkÅl e/;s fon;qr feVj o uG dusD’ku o eqyHkqr lqfo/kk ?ks.;kph loZLoh tckcnkjh rqepsoj ¼fygwu ?ks.kkj½ ;kapsoj jkfgy-” 6. It is to be noted that the purchaser i.e. “fygwu ?ks.kkj“ is the informant in the agreement. Therefore, when the agreement stipulates something else i.e. the written document stipulates something then any deviation from the same orally whether can be permissible, would be a question, and that will have to be dealt with by the Civil Court if at all there is any such litigation at the behest of respondent No.2. Every breach of promise, though we may accept the case as it is, will not culminate into criminal proceedings in the form of offence under Section 420, 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, in such circumstance, it would be an abuse of process of law if the applicants are asked to face the trial. Hence, we pass following order:- O R D E R (I) The Application stands allowed. cria-399.24 5 (II) The proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.620 of 2024 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Beed, arising out of the First Information Report vide Crime No.6 of 2024 registered with Shivajinagar Police Station, District-Beed, on 4th January 2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, stands quashed and set aside as against applicant Nos. 1 to 3 i.e. - 1) Lilabai Kacharulal Lodha, 2) Popat Kacharulal Lodha and 3) Sanjay Kacharulal Lodha. [SANJAY A. DESHMUKH] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE asb/MAY25