Full Judgment Text
2026:BHC-NAG:3021-DB
1 29-J-APL-1275-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1275 OF 2021
APPLICANT : Manohar Akaram Nikude,
Age - 62 years, Occu - Agriculturist
R/o Ashta (Neri),
Tah and Dist. Wardha.
V E R S U S
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station Sewagram,
Dist. Wardha.
2. Babarao Rangrao Shende,
Aged 50 years,
R/o Ganesh Nagar, Borgaon (Meghe),
Wardha.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M. N. Ali, Advocate for applicant.
Shri A. M. Kadukar, Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant No.1.
Shri J. R. Kidilay, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED : 17/02/2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
2. By this application, the applicant is seeking quashing of
the FIR in connection with Crime No.338/2020 and the
consequent proceeding arising out of same bearing Charge Sheet
No.1/2021 registered at Sewagram Police Station, Wardha.
3. A crime is registered on the basis of report lodged by
the non-applicant No.2 who is residing at Borgaon (Meghe),
2 29-J-APL-1275-2021.doc
Wardha having his house property in the vicinity. It is alleged that
the applicant has expressed his desire to sell his agricultural field
Survey Nos.149/A and 149/B to the Non-applicant No.2. On
30/04/2014, agreements of sell of above agricultural lands were
executed in favour of non-applicant No.2 and the non-applicant
No.2 paid earnest amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the applicant. It was
agreed between the applicant and non-applicant No.2 that the sale
deed shall be executed on or before 30/04/2014 after depositing
the remaining earnest money of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is alleged that
the applicant failed to execute the sale deed and therefore, non-
applicant No.2 issued notice on 27/06/2015. In spite of notice, the
applicant did not execute the sale deed. Therefore, the non-
applicant No.2 filed civil suit against the applicant for specific
performance of contract. The said suit was decreed on
10/04/2017. Thereafter, non-applicant No.2 filed execution
proceeding. It is further submitted that on 29/06/2018, the sale
deeds of above fields were executed in favour of the Non-applicant
No.2 through the Court. After execution of sale deed, the non-
applicant No.2 applied for mutation of his name, at that time, the
applicant has raised objection. As per the order of revenue
authority, the name of non-applicant No.2 is mutated. When the
non-applicant No.2 had been to the field to take the possession,
3 29-J-APL-1275-2021.doc
applicant and his relatives obstructed non-applicant No.2. It
further revealed that the present applicant has already sold the
Field Survey No.149/A to Vilas Bhalkar on 14/02/2018 vide
registered sale deed. Thus, the said fact was suppressed by the
applicant and another sale deed was executed. Thus, there was
intention since inception and on the basis of the same, crime came
to be registered. It is further apparent that FIR came to be
registered on the basis of direction given by the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Wardha to register the FIR.
4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant who submitted
that it is purely a civil dispute. The suit for specific performance
was already filed by the non-applicant No.2 which was decreed in
his favour. In fact, the applicant has denied the agreement of sale
in favour of the present non-applicant No.2. It was a forged
signature of the applicant by the non-applicant No.2. He also
invited my attention towards the finding of the learned Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Wardha while disposing of the civil suit.
Thus, he submitted that by no stretch of imagination, it can be said
that the offence under Section 420 of the IPC is made out against
the present applicant and therefore, the application deserves to be
allowed.
4 29-J-APL-1275-2021.doc
5. Per contra, learned APP and the learned counsel for the
complainant strongly opposed the said contention and submitted
that the intention since inception is apparent as the applicant was
having knowledge that he has already sold out one of the Survey
No.149/1 to Vilas Bhalkar and then also, he executed the sale
deed in favour of the present non-applicant No.2 accepted the sale
consideration amount and thereafter, it was revealed to the non-
applicant No.2 that the suit property is already sold out. Thus, the
intention since inception is apparent and therefore, at this stage,
prima facie case is made out against to the present applicant and
therefore, application deserves to be rejected.
6. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the entire
investigation papers, it reveals that the applicant and non-
applicant No.2 entered into an agreement to sell regarding the
agriculture property Survey Nos.149/A and 149/B. Accordingly,
the agreement of sale was executed and earnest money was
accepted by the present applicant, but he has not executed sale
deed and therefore, non-applicant No.2 has preferred the Special
Civil Suit. The said Special Civil Suit No.33/2016 was decided in
favour of the non-applicant No.2. Thereafter, the applicant has
preferred the Second Appeal before this Court also. Against the
same, First Appeal was preferred by the applicant. The same was
5 29-J-APL-1275-2021.doc
remanded back to the Trial Court. Being aggrieved with the same,
the non-applicant No.2 preferred the Second Appeal and in the
said Second Appeal, the findings of the Trial Court are confirmed
by this Court. On perusal of the statements of the witnesses, it
reveals that despite the knowledge, the applicant entered into an
agreement though property was already sold to third person. Thus,
the intention since inception, which is the requirement to attract
Section 420 of the IPC appears to be fulfilled. The offence
punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and to constitute the said
offence, there must be deception i.e. accused must have deceived
someone. As such, the accused must have induced a person
deceived 1) to deliver any property to any person, 2) to make,
alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or
anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being
converted into a valuable security or 3) that the accused must
have done so dishonestly. The offence punishable under Section
123 of the IPC to constitute criminal conspiracy, there must be an
agreement between two or more persons. An agreement should be
to do so because to do some illegal act or some act, which is not
illegal by illegal means.
7. Thus, to attract the offence punishable under Section
420 of the IPC, there must be deception and the accused must
6 29-J-APL-1275-2021.doc
have deceived by someone which is apparent in the present case.
From the facts itself, non-disclosure by the applicant regarding
earlier sale deed to the present non-applicant No.2 accepting
earnest amount from the non-applicant No.2 and not executing
the sale deed initially in his favour after the order of the Court, it
was executed in his favour. Thereafter, obstructed for the mutation
of the name of the present non-applicant No.2. Thus, all this
conduct is sufficient to infer that there was deception since
inception regarding the deception and therefore, prime facie case
is made out against the applicant.
8. After applying the parameters which are laid down by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs.
Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, wherein following
principles / guidelines are laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court
for consideration of the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
“(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2)
of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same
7 29-J-APL-1275-2021.doc
do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out
a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which
no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.”
9. Prima facie case is made out against the present
applicant and therefore, application deserves to be rejected.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order :-
ORDER
10. The application is rejected.
[JUDGE]
Choulwar
Signed by: V.M. Choulwar (VMC)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 21/02/2026 13:02:11
1 29-J-APL-1275-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1275 OF 2021
APPLICANT : Manohar Akaram Nikude,
Age - 62 years, Occu - Agriculturist
R/o Ashta (Neri),
Tah and Dist. Wardha.
V E R S U S
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station Sewagram,
Dist. Wardha.
2. Babarao Rangrao Shende,
Aged 50 years,
R/o Ganesh Nagar, Borgaon (Meghe),
Wardha.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M. N. Ali, Advocate for applicant.
Shri A. M. Kadukar, Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant No.1.
Shri J. R. Kidilay, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED : 17/02/2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
2. By this application, the applicant is seeking quashing of
the FIR in connection with Crime No.338/2020 and the
consequent proceeding arising out of same bearing Charge Sheet
No.1/2021 registered at Sewagram Police Station, Wardha.
3. A crime is registered on the basis of report lodged by
the non-applicant No.2 who is residing at Borgaon (Meghe),
2 29-J-APL-1275-2021.doc
Wardha having his house property in the vicinity. It is alleged that
the applicant has expressed his desire to sell his agricultural field
Survey Nos.149/A and 149/B to the Non-applicant No.2. On
30/04/2014, agreements of sell of above agricultural lands were
executed in favour of non-applicant No.2 and the non-applicant
No.2 paid earnest amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the applicant. It was
agreed between the applicant and non-applicant No.2 that the sale
deed shall be executed on or before 30/04/2014 after depositing
the remaining earnest money of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is alleged that
the applicant failed to execute the sale deed and therefore, non-
applicant No.2 issued notice on 27/06/2015. In spite of notice, the
applicant did not execute the sale deed. Therefore, the non-
applicant No.2 filed civil suit against the applicant for specific
performance of contract. The said suit was decreed on
10/04/2017. Thereafter, non-applicant No.2 filed execution
proceeding. It is further submitted that on 29/06/2018, the sale
deeds of above fields were executed in favour of the Non-applicant
No.2 through the Court. After execution of sale deed, the non-
applicant No.2 applied for mutation of his name, at that time, the
applicant has raised objection. As per the order of revenue
authority, the name of non-applicant No.2 is mutated. When the
non-applicant No.2 had been to the field to take the possession,
3 29-J-APL-1275-2021.doc
applicant and his relatives obstructed non-applicant No.2. It
further revealed that the present applicant has already sold the
Field Survey No.149/A to Vilas Bhalkar on 14/02/2018 vide
registered sale deed. Thus, the said fact was suppressed by the
applicant and another sale deed was executed. Thus, there was
intention since inception and on the basis of the same, crime came
to be registered. It is further apparent that FIR came to be
registered on the basis of direction given by the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Wardha to register the FIR.
4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant who submitted
that it is purely a civil dispute. The suit for specific performance
was already filed by the non-applicant No.2 which was decreed in
his favour. In fact, the applicant has denied the agreement of sale
in favour of the present non-applicant No.2. It was a forged
signature of the applicant by the non-applicant No.2. He also
invited my attention towards the finding of the learned Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Wardha while disposing of the civil suit.
Thus, he submitted that by no stretch of imagination, it can be said
that the offence under Section 420 of the IPC is made out against
the present applicant and therefore, the application deserves to be
allowed.
4 29-J-APL-1275-2021.doc
5. Per contra, learned APP and the learned counsel for the
complainant strongly opposed the said contention and submitted
that the intention since inception is apparent as the applicant was
having knowledge that he has already sold out one of the Survey
No.149/1 to Vilas Bhalkar and then also, he executed the sale
deed in favour of the present non-applicant No.2 accepted the sale
consideration amount and thereafter, it was revealed to the non-
applicant No.2 that the suit property is already sold out. Thus, the
intention since inception is apparent and therefore, at this stage,
prima facie case is made out against to the present applicant and
therefore, application deserves to be rejected.
6. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the entire
investigation papers, it reveals that the applicant and non-
applicant No.2 entered into an agreement to sell regarding the
agriculture property Survey Nos.149/A and 149/B. Accordingly,
the agreement of sale was executed and earnest money was
accepted by the present applicant, but he has not executed sale
deed and therefore, non-applicant No.2 has preferred the Special
Civil Suit. The said Special Civil Suit No.33/2016 was decided in
favour of the non-applicant No.2. Thereafter, the applicant has
preferred the Second Appeal before this Court also. Against the
same, First Appeal was preferred by the applicant. The same was
5 29-J-APL-1275-2021.doc
remanded back to the Trial Court. Being aggrieved with the same,
the non-applicant No.2 preferred the Second Appeal and in the
said Second Appeal, the findings of the Trial Court are confirmed
by this Court. On perusal of the statements of the witnesses, it
reveals that despite the knowledge, the applicant entered into an
agreement though property was already sold to third person. Thus,
the intention since inception, which is the requirement to attract
Section 420 of the IPC appears to be fulfilled. The offence
punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and to constitute the said
offence, there must be deception i.e. accused must have deceived
someone. As such, the accused must have induced a person
deceived 1) to deliver any property to any person, 2) to make,
alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or
anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being
converted into a valuable security or 3) that the accused must
have done so dishonestly. The offence punishable under Section
123 of the IPC to constitute criminal conspiracy, there must be an
agreement between two or more persons. An agreement should be
to do so because to do some illegal act or some act, which is not
illegal by illegal means.
7. Thus, to attract the offence punishable under Section
420 of the IPC, there must be deception and the accused must
6 29-J-APL-1275-2021.doc
have deceived by someone which is apparent in the present case.
From the facts itself, non-disclosure by the applicant regarding
earlier sale deed to the present non-applicant No.2 accepting
earnest amount from the non-applicant No.2 and not executing
the sale deed initially in his favour after the order of the Court, it
was executed in his favour. Thereafter, obstructed for the mutation
of the name of the present non-applicant No.2. Thus, all this
conduct is sufficient to infer that there was deception since
inception regarding the deception and therefore, prime facie case
is made out against the applicant.
8. After applying the parameters which are laid down by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs.
Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, wherein following
principles / guidelines are laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court
for consideration of the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
“(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2)
of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same
7 29-J-APL-1275-2021.doc
do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out
a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which
no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.”
9. Prima facie case is made out against the present
applicant and therefore, application deserves to be rejected.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order :-
ORDER
10. The application is rejected.
[JUDGE]
Choulwar
Signed by: V.M. Choulwar (VMC)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 21/02/2026 13:02:11