SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Bom) 1885

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
A.V. Nirgude, Indira K. Jain, JJ.
Bhagwan s/o Dnyaneshwar Chaudhari and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & anr. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1315, 1317 of 2015
Decided On : 01-02-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shri P.D. Bachate
For the Respondent: Smt. R.K. Ladda, Shri P.B. Lad

Allegations in a complaint must make out a case for investigation and registration of an offence, and disputes of a civil nature should be addressed in the Civil Court.

Headnote:

Quashing - Criminal Complaint - Allegations in complaint did not make out a case for investigation and registration of any offence - Dispute of civil nature - Complaints quashed

Fact of the Case:

The petitions sought quashing of a criminal complaint registered by the police upon receiving direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The complainant alleged that the accused created false documents to claim ownership of land and threatened him when he went to the disputed land.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allegations made in the complaint did not make out a case for investigation and registration of any offence. It also noted that the dispute was of a civil nature and that the remedy for the complainant lied in the Civil Court, not the Criminal Court.

Issues: Quashing of criminal complaint, nature of allegations, jurisdiction of Civil Court

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations did not warrant criminal investigation and that the dispute was of a civil nature, directing the complainant to seek remedy in the Civil Court.

Final Decision: Both the Writ Petitions were allowed, and the complaints were quashed.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. Nirgude, J.

Both these petitions can be disposed of by this common order.

2. These petitions seek quashing of Crime No. 154 of 2015, registered by Chikalthana police station upon receiving direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

3. In order to examine whether the allegations made in the complaint make out a case of criminal nature, we perused the complaint and found that complainant Dhananjay has asserted that he is owner of land Gat No. 265 of village Apatgaon, Taluka and District Aurangabad. He himself admitted that the original owner sold this land to various people making pieces. He alleged that accused created documents to create an impression that they are owners of part of the land which actually belong to him. He also alleged that when he went to the disputed land the accused came there and threatened him of dire consequences if he would come again to the land. He, therefore, alleged that the accused conspired to prepare false documents. He also alleged that the accused cheated him.

4. The allegations made in the complaint, in our view, do not make out a case for investigation and registration of any offence. In addition to this, the parties have already gone to Civil Court to get the title of the land decided. The remedy to the complainant lied in Civil Court and not in Criminal Court. The dispute is of civil nature and, therefore, the complaints deserve to be quashed.

5. Both the Writ Petitions are allowed. Complaints stand quashed.

Petitions allowed.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top