28-alp-484-2019.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 484 OF 2019 (Leave to file appeal) Shailesh Ramchandra Gholap … Applicant vs. Vivek Kashinath Dahivalikar and Ors … Respondents Mr. Sagar Ganpat Talekar for Applicant Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 14th NOVEMBER 2025 ORDER: 1. This application is filed under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) by the original complainant to challenge the order passed by the trial court acquitting the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents had agreed to sell their property to the complainant for a total amount of Rs. 25,00,000/-. They accepted part of the consideration amount, on the condition that they would secure the sisters' signatures for the said transaction. Despite accepting part Page no. 1 of 4 varsha 28-alp-484-2019.doc consideration, the respondents failed to keep their promise and refused to secure the signatures of three sisters for the completion of the contract. He submits that when the complainant issued a public notice, one of the sisters raised objections to the complainant’s claim for the transaction. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant points out that after the payment of the earnest amount, the encumbrance on the land was also removed. However, the respondents deliberately failed to comply with their commitment to secure the signatures of their sisters, despite accepting a part of the consideration amount. He submits that the trial court has relied upon the criminal complaint filed against the complainant in respect of the transaction with different parties to disbelieve the complainant’s grievance and allegations made in the present complaint. He submits that there are sufficient documents produced on record to show that a substantial payment was made to the respondents in the said transaction of the land, which was also to be executed by the sisters. He therefore submits that based on the substantial evidence on record, the respondents deserve to be held guilty. Hence, the applicant be granted leave to file an appeal. 4. I have perused the evidence annexed to the application. The Page no. 2 of 4 28-alp-484-2019.doc contentions of the complainant in his complaint and the notice produced on record indicate that he had called upon the respondents to specifically perform the contract for the sale of the land. One of the sisters had objected to the sale transaction. From the admissions given by the complainant in the cross-examination, it appears that the respondents had never refused to execute the agreement so far as their share was concerned. The complainant has positively responded to the suggestions put to him in the cross- examination that the respondents, i.e. the accused persons, had never refused to perform their part of the contract. 5. Considering the grievance made by the complainant, as reflected in the documentary and oral evidence on record, the dispute between the parties appears to be a civil matter regarding the sale of land belonging to the accused persons and their sisters. The trial court has therefore held that the grievances pertain to the civil dispute and that the allegations for taking any criminal action are not supported by sufficient evidence. The trial court has also referred to the pending civil proceedings between the parties. The nature of the allegations and the supporting oral evidence pertains to the non-performance of the agreement executed in respect of the sale transaction of the land. Page no. 3 of 4 28-alp-484-2019.doc 6. Considering the evidence on record, the view taken by the trial court is a plausible view that could have been taken based on the evidence on record. There can be interference in an appeal against acquittal if, after reappreciation of evidence, the only conclusion that could be drawn is that the guilt of the accused is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In the present case, there is no ground for granting leave to file an appeal against the order of acquittal. 7. The application is dismissed. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 4 of 4