High Court of Judicature at Bombay
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & G.S. PATEL, JJ.
Rajesh Himatlal Shah & Another
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Another
Criminal Application No. 700 of 2011 With Criminal Writ Petition No. 1792 of 2012
Decided On : 03-10-2013
Forgery - Land Dispute - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 420, 464, 465 - The judgment discusses the application of Sections 463, 464, and 465 of the Indian Penal Code in a case involving allegations of forgery and cheating in a land dispute. The court emphasizes the seriousness of the crimes committed and the need to protect the rights of tribal and illiterate individuals in land transactions.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over the alleged forgery and cheating in a land transaction. The complainant accused the builders of fabricating and forging documents to grab valuable immovable property belonging to the Adiwasi community. The accused sought to quash the First Information Report (FIR) registered against them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the criminal proceedings prima facie disclosed commission of a cognizable offence and refused to quash the FIR. It emphasized the need for deeper probe and investigation into the documents and transactions involved in the case, particularly in relation to the rights of tribal and illiterate individuals in land transactions.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged forgery and cheating in a land dispute, the rights of tribal and illiterate individuals in land transactions, and the application of Sections 463, 464, and 465 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the prima facie disclosure of a cognizable offence and the need for deeper probe and investigation into the documents and transactions involved in the case, particularly in relation to the rights of tribal and illiterate individuals in land transactions.
Final Decision: Both the Criminal Application and the Writ Petition were dismissed, and the court continued the interim order for 12 weeks to enable the Applicants to challenge the judgment in a higher court.
1. Since both matters involve common issues, they are being decided by this common order. For properly appreciating the arguments of parties, the facts in Criminal Application No.700/2011 are referred to.
2. There was a order to dispose of these Petitions finally and hence we have heard counsel accordingly. Hence, RULE. The Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.
3. The Criminal Application No.700/2011 invokes jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the First Information Report dated 08.07.2011 registered with Dahisar Police Station being C.R. No.220/2011 alleging offences of cheating and forgery punishable under Sections 420, 464, 465, 467 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The Respondent No.2 (original Complainant) has in his statement alleged that he is residing in Thane district and at the address particularly mentioned by him. He states that he belongs to Adiwasi Warli Community. He made a complaint in writing against the builders Rajesh Himatlal Shah and Mukesh Himatlal Shah. The Complaint is that Rajesh Shah and Mukesh Shah are Managing Directors/ Partners of one M/s Nahalchand Laloochand Private Limited. They have fabricated and forged the Release Deed dated 06.09.2002. It was executed before the Sub Registrar, Borivali on 25.09.2002 on behalf of the dead person Devkubai. In fact, Devkubai expired on 23.07.2000. It is alleged that the complaint was made to the Senior Inspector, Dahisar Police Station on 22.07.2010 immediately after noticing this Release Deed. It is stated that on the basis of the forged documents and more particularly documents prepared in the name of dead person, the immovable property of Adiwasi community is grabbed by these two persons. There is a Power of Attorney dated 03.12.1989 which is prepared in English. That is also alleged to be forged and fabricated. On the strength of this Power of Attorney, but after the death of Devkubai, the said Release Deed is stated to be executed. Such act amounts to not only cheating but forgery. There are references made as to how the immovable property, which is extremely valuable being Survey No.327/3 Hissa No.3 CTS No.1475 admeasuring 9522.2 sq. meters and Survey No.328 Hissa No.11 CTS No.1462 admeasuring 1397.8 sq. meters of village Dahisar, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District, is grabbed by the Applicants (Rajesh and Mukesh) on the basis of this fraudulent and fabricated Release Deed. It is on such allegations that the First Information Report has been registered and the original accused have approached this Court seeking quashing of this First Information Report.
5. Mr. Thorat, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of this Criminal Application, submitted that one Marya Govind Gowari/ Warli was, at the relevant time, tenant of this property/ land. He was interested in developing the land. A partnership firm, namely, M/s Raja Constructions was formed on 01.09.1986. Nahalchand Laloochand Private Limited, Himmatlal Laxmichand Private Limited and Marya Govind Warli were shown as partners in the Deed of Partnership. This was duly registered with the Registrar of Firms. On 18.08.1986, Marya Govind Warli executed a declaration that the said Devkubai has been adopted by him as a daughter. The said Marya died on 01.03.1987 leaving behind the said Devkubai as sole successor. On 08.01.1988, an agreement was executed between M/s Raja Constructions and the said Devkubai confirming that an amount of Rs.4.20 lacs is due to Marya Warli. The said Devkubai confirmed that Marya Warli was a partner of M/s Raja Constructions. Devkubai executed the General Power of Attorney on 30.08.1988 appointing the Applicants (Rajesh and Mukesh) as her true and lawful constituted Attorneys. The partnership firm M/s Raja Constructions commenced the construction of internal road and storm water drain on the land. On 04.07.1989, a certificate under Section 32M of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricult
AIR 1963 SC 1577 (G.S.Bansal Versus The Delhi Administration)
Dr.Vimla Versus The Delhi Administration reported in AIR 1963 SC 1572
AIR 1996 SC 722 (State of Maharashtra v/sIshwar Piraji Kalpatri)
AIR 1996 SC 2982 (Mushtaq Ahmad Versus Mohd. Habibur Rehman Faizi)
Inder Mohan Goswami and another Versus State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.