944-APPLN-635-2024.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 944 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 635 OF 2024 Vitthal Dinkarrao Deshmukh VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Another ... Mr. A. P. Deshmukh h/f Mr. M. S. Shaikh, Advocate for Applicant Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for Respondent No. 1 Ms. S. G. Chincholkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 CORAM :R.M. JOSHI, J DATE :SEPTEMBER 10, 2026 P. C. : 1. The present Applications No. 635 of 2024 is seeking quashment of FIR No. 0255/ 2023 dated 14.07.2023 registered with Sengaon Police Station, Dist. Hingoli, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 447, 464, 468, 471, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). 2. The case of the prosecution is that the informant, Virat Prakash Landge, claims lawful ownership and possession of agricultural land in Gut No. 594, Sengaon. Despite a prior civil suit filed by father of the Accused No. 1 being dismissed in court, the three accused namely Anil Deshmukh, Vitthal Deshmukh- the present Applicant, and Balasaheb Naik allegedly conspired to grab the land by forging land title documents namely Sale Deed No. 1498/2022 by featuring deliberate false boundary entries. On two 2026:BHC-AUG:42793-DB 944-APPLN-635-2024.odt separate occasions, 14.11.2022 and 03.12.2022, the accused committed criminal trespass by forcibly dumping construction material (rocks/murrum) onto the land to assert illegal possession. When confronted by the informant, the accused verbally abused him and issued death threats, warning that they would break his limbs. Because local police failed to take action on multiple complaints, the informant filed this application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure a judicial order to register an FIR. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that this is the case of false implication and the complaint lodged tries to give the color of criminal proceedings to the proceedings which are predominantly civil in nature. The applicant has purchased the property from the respondent No.2/ informant by executing a registered sale deed dated 18.05.2022 and this fact has been admitted by the informant before the Civil Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 165/2022. He further submits that the Learned Magistrate ought to have applied his mind to informant’s attempt to convert civil dispute into the criminal offence to pressurize the Applicant. To support his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Priyanka Shrivastava and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 287. 4. Learned APP and learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 944-APPLN-635-2024.odt strongly oppose the grant of any relief to the present applicant and contended that there is prima facie substance in the case made out against the Applicant. They state that from the perusal of material available, offence is made out. They draw the attention of the court to FIR to submit that as the civil suit instituted prior in time was dismissed, the present Applicant in order to take possession of the property recorded false boundary entries in Sale Deed and moreover, on two different occasions trespassed the property and asserted their illegal possession. It is argued that when the informant tried to confront them, they abused him verbally and issued death threats. By referring to material evidence collected during investigation which forms part of charge-sheet, it is submitted by Counsel for informant that since prima facie offence is made out it is not a case for quashment of proceeding. 5. Perusal of the record shows that there is a civil dispute between the parties, and a civil suit filed in regard to the issue is pending before the competent court. The dispute sought to be made out by the informant is about boundaries but subject matter of suit is filed before the civil court bearing RCS No. 165/2022 is the same and injunction has also been granted in connection thereto by the civil court. On the other hand, there is no allegation about the property being sold by fabrication of record, by impersonation or without ownership of the property, etc. Therefore, essential ingredients of any of the offences sought to be alleged against the 944-APPLN-635-2024.odt Applicant are not made out to constitute the offences alleged. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal an Ors. (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335, has laid down guidelines for quashment of proceedings when offence is not made out on the basis of material available on record, it is open for High Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings. Similarly, in case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. And Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 736, and Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 673, it is held that it is not open for the parties to convert civil dispute into criminal dispute and if a dispute is essentially civil in nature and a criminal proceeding has been initiated merely to harass or exert pressure, the High Court must step in to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. These judgments have square application to the present case. 7. In view of the above, the Application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ qua present Applicant. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Malani