Bombay High Court
Meena Wd/O Harshad Shah And 2 Another vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Ps, In … on 16 April, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:5885-DB
1 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 736 OF 2024
1. Meena wd/o Harshad Shah,
Aged 66 years, Occ. Homemaker,
R/o Flat No. 15, Ashish Tower,
Telephone Exchange Square, C.A.
Road, Nagpur.
2. Amar s/o Harshad Shah,
Aged 48 years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Flat No. 15, Ashish Tower,
Telephone Exchange Square, C.A.
Road, Nagpur.
3. Chetan s/o Harshad Shah,
Aged 42 years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Flat No. 15, Ashish Tower,
Telephone Exchange Square, C.A.
Road, Nagpur. APPLICANTS
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Thr. Police Station In charge, Tahsil
Police Station, Nagpur.
2. Mr. Nilesh Amarchand Mehta,
Aged 54 years, R/o. House No.
1062, Jain Ratna Amarchand, Mehta
Marg, Bhaji Mandi, Itwari, Pothane
Tehsil, Nagpur. NON-APPLICANTS
WITH
2 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 720 OF 2024
Anil s/o Ratiram Fulzele,
Aged about 45 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 76, Tapasya, Beldar
Nagar, Dighori, Narsala Road,
Narsala, Nagpur - 440 034. APPLICANT
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Thr. Police Station Officer, Police
Station Tahsil, Nagpur.
2. Mr. Nilesh Amarchand Mehta,
R/o. House No. 1062, Jain Ratna
Amarchand, Mehta Marg, Bhaji
Mandi, Itwari, Pothane Tehsil,
Nagpur. NON-APPLICANTS
-----------------------------------------------
APL NO. 736/2024
Mr. Shashank Manohar, Advocate a/w Mr. Rohan Malviya,
Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. Neeraj Jawade, APP for the Non-applicant No.1 /State.
Mr. Anil Mardikar, Senior Advocate a/b Mr. C.B. Barve,
Advocate for the Non-applicant No.2.
APL NO. 720/2024
Mr. Rohan Deo, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Neeraj Jawade, APP for the Non-applicant No.1 /State.
Mr. Anil Mardikar, Senior Advocate a/b Mr. C.B. Barve,
Advocate for the Non-applicant No.2.
-----------------------------------------------
3 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
RESERVED ON : 09th APRIL, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 16th APRIL, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learned
Counsel for the respective parties.
3. Both these Applications are for quashing of the First
Information Report (“FIR” for short) in connection with Crime
No.999/2023 registered with Police Station Tahsil, District
Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 419,
465, 467, 468, 471, 167, 120-B read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) and consequent proceeding
arising out of the same bearing R.C.C. No.5110/2025.
4. The Applicants namely Meena Harshad Shah, Amar
Harshad Shah and Chetan Harshad Shah preferred an
Application bearing Criminal Application (APL) No. 736/2024,
whereas Applicant Anil Ratiram Fulzele who was serving in a
4 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
Land Records Office preferred an Application bearing Criminal
Application (APL) No. 720/2024.
5. House property Nos. 1063, 1063A, 1063B and
1063C having Nazul Sheet No.159 and City Survey Nos. 560
and 561 was purchased by deceased Harshad Amrutlal Shah in
the year 1999 from Prashant Jejani and Kamlesh Shah and four
houses were constructed on City Survey Nos.560 and 561 which
were owned by different owners. There was 10 feet lane (open
space) of Government between City Survey Nos. 560 and 561.
Deceased Harshad Shah and the Applicants demolished old
houses and constructed a building. The FIR came to be lodged
against the present Applicants and the other co-accused on the
basis of the report lodged by the Non-applicant No.2/Nilesh
Amarchand Mehta.
6. As per his allegations the said construction carried
out by the Applicants and deceased Harshad Shah was not as
per the sanctioned plan. Therefore, he filed Civil Suit bearing
R.C.S. No.52/2015 in Court of Civil Judge Senior Division,
Nagpur for injunction, wherein ad interim injunction was
granted. The complaint was also made to the Municipal
5 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
Corporation. The Junior Engineer of Nagpur Municipal
Corporation, inspected the premises and observed
encroachment on Government premises. Accordingly, notices
were issued to deceased Harshad Shah and Applicants for
removal of the illegal construction. As per the allegations on
11.09.2018, the Applicants applied to the City Survey Office for
measurement of the plots. On this application, the co-accused
i.e. the Applicant in Criminal Application (APL) No.720/2024
i.e. Anil Ratiram Fulzele issued notices to the concerned persons
but the notices were not given to the persons affected by the
construction like neighbours etc., were shown to be given to the
other persons.
7. The measurement was made in presence of the
persons who were not concerned. For inspection of the property
co-accused Sunil Gaikwad was named and the said co-accused
had without verification of the details prepared a report. The
report indicated that, the said 36.125 sq.mtr., road was in “User
Possession” i.e. of the present Applicants. On the basis of the
said report of the co-accused Sunil Gaikwad, the Applicants
applied to the Superintendent of Land Records to correct the
6 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
Government records. The Superintendent of Land Records
therefore issued a letter to the Applicant Anil Fuleze who was
the City Survey Officer (Zone-1). The said Anil Fulzele
thereafter issued notices to the neighbours and the present
Complainant. In fact these notices were not issued and some of
the persons to whom the notices were issued were already dead.
As per the contention of the Complainant he had never received
a notice and his signature in fact was forged and inspection
report prepared by the Applicant Anil Fulzele, wherein it was
mentioned that measurement of City Survey No.560 was
correct, however, as regards City Survey No. 561 the area of
road 36.125 sq.mtr., was added by the Applicant Anil Fulzele.
8. The entire exercise was done without calling the
concerned persons who were affected by the measurement. The
signatures which are on the notices are forged one. After this
measurement, the Applicant Anil Fulzele sent the report to the
Superintendent of Land Records and Superintendent of Land
Records passed an order of enquiry under Section 20(1) of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and thereafter
Applicant Anil Fulzele again issued notices to the concerned
7 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
persons and Government bodies such as Nazul Department,
Nagpur Improvement Trust and Nagpur Municipal Corporation.
These departments have not received the said notices and that
every other concerned persons mentioned has also not received
the said notices. Spot inspection was conducted and the said
Applicant Anil Fulzele passed an order on 08.11.2019 and the
entire area of road i.e. 36.125 sq.mtr., was added in City Survey
No. 561 and the area was shown to be 316.5 sq.mtr. On the
basis of the same, the amalgamated map of City Survey Nos.
560 and 561 was made by the Town Planning Department of
NMC. On receiving the said complaint, the Investigating Agency
registered the crime.
9. After registration of the crime the wheels of the
investigation started rotating. During investigation the
Investigating Officer has recorded the relevant statements of
witnesses and after completion of the investigation submitted
charge-sheet against the present Applicants.
10. Heard Mr. Manohar, learned Counsel for the
Applicants in Criminal Application (APL) No. 736/2024, who
submitted that on going through the entire facts which are
8 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
narrated in the FIR and which came forward during the
investigation sufficiently shows that, the dispute between the
present Applicants and the Non-applicant No.2 is of a civil
nature.
11. He invited my attention towards the extract of
Enquiry Register of the year 1970 which would reveal that the
plot area of City Survey No. 561 is 303.2 sq.mtr. Sale deeds
through which the Applicants have acquired their rights also
mentioned the same Plot area i.e. 303.2 sq.mtr. Thus, it is
apparent that, the Complainant has made a false statement as to
the area of said Plot. He submitted that, by no stretch of
imagination it can be said that, any offence is committed by the
present Applicants. Even accepting the allegations as it is that
they have encroached upon the Government land, no criminal
offence is made out against the present Applicants as the
dispute could be in the nature of civil transaction.
12. He submitted that, area of Plot bearing City Survey
No. 562 was originally 147.53 sq.mtr., but was then changed to
102.2 sq.mtr. Then the owners of the City Survey No. 562
challenged the order before the competent authority and the
9 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
area of the City Survey No. 562 was finalized to 126.00 sq.mtr.,
in the year 1989. The sale deeds through which the
Complainant had acquired his title also reveal the Plot area of
the City Survey No. 562 to be 126.00 sq.mtr., only. Thus, the
correction deeds executed by the Complainant which was not in
relation to the area of Plot/City Survey No. 562.
13. He further submitted that, the Assistant Director,
Town Planning Department, Nagpur Municipal Corporation,
Nagpur, has vide order dated 08.07.2020 amalgamated City
Survey Nos. 560 and 561 vide order No. MaNaPaNa/NaRV/22/
Akatrikaran. Thus, the allegations as to the land between the
City Survey Nos. 560 and 561 having a public road is false. The
open space is a part of Plot area of City Survey No. 561 and
there is no record as to the 10 feet lane being Government land
or road. Sale deeds would reveal that the 10 feet lane between
the City Survey Nos. 560 and 561 is an internal arrangement
between the Applicants to allow Mr. Chetan Shah to access his
part of the property. He further submitted that, Complainant has
made allegations as to non-compliance of the statutory rules of
service of notice to the concerned parties and procedure
10 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
followed by without Government Officers. However, this is not
substantiated by any material. As far as the forgery of the
signature is concerned, there is no specific allegation that which
of the accused has committed the said forgery i.e. the forged
signatures of the dead persons. Thus, he submitted that, unless
and until the exact act of forgery was committed by whom is not
established by the prosecution at prima facie no offence would
be made out against the present Applicants.
14. He invited my attention towards the various
provisions i.e. offence under Sections 420, 465, 467 and 468 of
IPC and submitted that none of the offences are made out
against the present Applicants. He also invited my attention
towards various documents on record and submitted that even
accepting the allegations as it is, it would be a civil dispute
between the parties and no criminal offence is made out against
the present Applicants. He further invited my attention towards
the fact that, the FIR came to be registered in view of the order
passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur under
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short
“Cr.P.C.”) in Cri.M.A. No. 3479/2022. Subsequent to that, the
11 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
Complainant has filed an application under Section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C., bearing Misc.Cri.No. 1653/2023, the same was
withdrawn by the Applicants. Pendency of previous application
bearing Cri.M.A. No. 3479/2022 was not mentioned in
subsequent application.
15. Mr. Manohar, learned Counsel, has placed reliance
on Ravichandran Vs. State by Dy. Superintendent of Police,
Madras, 2010 CRI.L.J. 2879; Sherimon Vs. State of Kerala, 2012
CRI.L.J. 988; Jibrial Diwan Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1997
SC 3424; Deepak Gaba & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.,
(2023) SCC 423 and Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1950.
16. Mr. Deo, learned Counsel for the Applicant in
Criminal Application (APL) No. 720/2024, submitted that as far
as Applicant Anil Fulzele is concerned, who was serving as an
employee of the Land Records Office. His role is only to the
extent that he has issued notices to all the concerned parties for
measurement of land on 05.10.2019 and also submitted his
report to the office of Superintendent of Land Records and the
Superintendent of Land Records directed the Applicant to
12 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
enquire into the matter and pass an appropriate orders. The
notices are to the extent that, they were called to remain
present for spot inspection on 30.10.2019. There is no reason
for the Applicant to have a knowledge that, some of the persons
to whom he has issued the notices are already dead. As per the
procedure he has issued the notices and thereafter the spot
inspection was carried out.
17. He submitted that, property bearing City Survey No.
561 was originally owned by late Shri Bhogilal Parekh vide
registered sale deeds dated 03.07.1941 and 30.09.1958 of area
admeasuring 303.2 sq.mtr. The Records of Enquiry Register City
Survey reveals the mutation of property in the year 1971 and
the area shown to be 303.2 sq.mtr. After the sale deed the
property was transferred in the name of Ramesh Bhogilal
Parekh. Said Ramesh Bhogilal Parekh sold the said land i.e. City
Survey No. 561 to M/s Arihant Developers vide registered sale
deed dated 18.08.1998. City Survey No. 561 was sold by M/s
Arihant Developers in 4 parts to the Applicants in Criminal
Application (APL) No. 736/2024 vide registered sale deeds. M/s
Arihant Developers sold area admeasuring 66.357 sq.mtr., to
13 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
Harshad Shah who is dead vide sale deed dated 16.06.1999.
The area admeasuring 81.03 sq.mtr., was sold to Meena Shah
vide sale deed dated 16.06.1999 vide sale deed No. 2540. The
area admeasuring 87.97 sq.mtr., was sold to Amar Shah vide
sale deed dated 16.06.1999 by M/s Arihant Developers and M/s
Arihant Developers sold area admeasuring 67.56 sq.mtr., to
Chetan Shah vide sale deed dated 16.06.1999 out of City
Survey No. 561. The another City Survey No. 562 was originally
owned by one Santosh Radke and Dharmaraj Radke. They had
purchased the same vide sale deed dated 12.10.1965
admeasuring 1588 sq.ft. The property bearing City Survey No.
562 was sold to Smt. Savitaben Mehta, Smt. Swarupaben Mehta
and Smt. Kurnudben Mehta in the year 1989 vide sale deed
bearing No. 4480/1989.
18. The extract of the Enquiry Register of the land
Records shows the area of the City Survey No. 562 was
decreased from 147.53 sq.mtr., to 102.2 sq.mtr., vide order
dated 18.09.1971. Then owners of the City Survey No. 562 vide
order dated 19.12.1990 corrected the area from 102.2 sq.mtr.,
to 126.00 sq.mtr. in proceedings bearing No.BND/54/57/89-90.
14 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
The owners of the property bearing City Survey No. 562
transferred their shares to Shri Parsh Mehta vide registered gift
deeds bearing Nos. 613/1989, 614/1989 and 615/1989.
Thereafter the property was mortgaged and sold in auction to
M/s Gondwana Construction Private Limited vide sale letter
bearing No. 1154/2007 dated 27.02.2007. M/s Gondwana
Construction Private Limited sold the second floor and third
floor of the building on the City Survey No. 562 to the
Complainant Nilesh Mehta vide sale deed bearing No.
5252/2008 on 30.09.2008. The ground floor and first floor on
the City Survey No. 562 was sold to Smt. Neeta Manish Mehta
vide registered sale deed dated 25.09.2009. The correction deed
was executed between Smt. Neeta Mehta and M/s. Gondwana
Construction Private Limited on 19.04.2023, whereby the area
of the City Survey No. 562 has been increased from 126 sq.mtr.,
to 147 sq.mtr. Thus, he submitted that, both the sale deeds
referred above specifically mentioned the Plot area to be 126.00
sq.mtr. The area shown in the measurement carried out on the
application of the Non-applicant No.2 also shows the area of
City Survey No.562 to be 126.00 sq.mtr.
15 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
19. He further submitted that, as far as the present
Applicant is concerned, whose role is only to the extent that he
has issued the notices and passed the order in view of the
directions given by the Superintendent of Land Records. He has
followed the rules for measurement, demarcation and spot
inspection to the letter and spirit as prescribed by the
Government of Maharashtra. He submitted that, the Applicant
was directed by the Superintendent of Land Records to submit
the report and after issuance of notice, the Applicant has
submitted the report. The Non-applicant No.2 instead of
challenging the decision of Superintendent of Land Records, has
decided to involve the present Applicant and the other
co-accused in a criminal case on false and frivolous allegations.
20. He submitted that, as far as the allegations levelled
against the present Applicant of preparing the false report and
alienating the City Survey No. 561, is not substantiated by any
investigation material. In fact, the Applicant has conducted spot
inspection, recorded the statements of the other Applicants as
well as recorded the statements of the relevant persons and
thereafter submitted the report. It is alleged that, notices for
16 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
measurement and demarcation were served to the persons who
have been expired long back. Admittedly, the Applicant himself
has not served the notices but these notices are served through
the other employees, and therefore, there is no reason for him
to have a knowledge about the death of some of the persons
who were the adjoining owners. He submitted that, even
accepting the allegations as it is, there is nothing on record to
show that it was the present Applicant who has forged the
signatures of the persons who are dead, and therefor, the
Application deserves to be allowed.
21. Per contra, Mr. Jawade, learned APP strongly
opposed the said contention and submitted that on going
through the entire investigation papers it is clear that, Applicant
Anil Fulzele has issued the notices and without verifying
whether the concerned persons to whom he has issued the
notices were served with the notices, carried out the spot
inspection and forged documents were prepared. His
involvement reveals from the various statements of the
witnesses, and therefore, the Application deserves to be
rejected.
17 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
22. Per contra, Mr. Mardikar, leaned Senior Counsel for
the Non-applicant No.2 submitted that, the forgery at the hands
of the present Applicant reveals as notices which are issued by
the present Applicant to various persons and the statements of
the legal heirs of the said persons shows the said persons were
dead long back. The notice was issued on 27.09.2019 to
Complainant Nilesh Amarchand Mehta and others. The death
certificates which are collected during the investigation shows
that Ramchandra Chaturbhujji Sewak who is at serial No.5
shown to be signed was dead long back on 24.11.1997, Shrikant
Dwarkaprasad Kabra was shown at serial No.7 and his death
certificate shows that he died on 14.12.2004, one Dwarkaprasad
Kabra also died on 18.05.2017, Mangilal Motilal Jain who is at
serial No.10 also died on 30.10.1976, Hemlata Vijaykumar
Mahendra shown at serial No.11 also reported to be dead on
26.11.2018 and Harshad Amritlal Shah died on 04.10.2019.
The statements of the legal heirs of these persons namely
Durgaprasad Ramchandra Sewak, Smt. Shilpi Manish
Mahendra, Govind Shrikant Kabra and Rakesh Subhashchandra
Madan shows that, they have never received any notices to
remain present for the said measurement.
18 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
23. He submitted that, accused Nos. 1 to 3 i.e. Meena
Harshad Shah, Amar Harshad Shah, Chetan Harshad Shah and
late Harshad Shah had applied to NMC for sanction of building
plan for their proposed building and NMC has sanctioned their
building plan specifically for the residential use only. But the
Applicants have contravened the same and constructed illegal
commercial building in the residential zone without any
sanction. When this fact came to the knowledge of NMC,
demolition notice was issued to the Applicants.
24. It is further submitted by him that, the Complainant
came to know that the Applicants also made an application with
the City Survey for the measurement of the land bearing City
Survey Nos. 560 and 561, Nazul Sheet No.159 and given the
date for inspection on 05.10.2019. The deceased Harshad
Amrutlal Shah was shown to be present on the site, whereas he
was already died on 04.10.2019. The death of said Harshad
Shah is not disputed. Similarly, various persons who were issued
notices were already dead but their signatures are shown on the
said notices. Thus, the Applicants have committed a forgery on
the basis of the forged documents and further proceedings were
19 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
completed by the Department of City Survey Office. Thus, the
present Applicants are the beneficiaries due to the said forgery.
25. He has invited my attention towards the various
maps as well as various statements of the witnesses and the
notices which were issued for remaining present for the spot
inspection and submitted that these documents clearly shows
that on the basis of the forged documents the Applicants have
amalgamated the plots and encroached over the Government
land. Thus, considering the prima facie material against the
present Applicants, showing their involvement not only in the
forgery of the documents but grabbing the Government
property, and therefore, the Application deserves to be rejected.
26. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh & Ors., (2023)
18 SCC 399; Dharambeer Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand
& Anr., (2025) 1 SCC 392 and Kathyayini Vs. Sidharth P.S.
Reddy & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1428.
27. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned Counsel for the Applicants as well as learned APP and
20 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
learned Senior Counsel for the Non-applicant No.2 and the
various decisions relied upon by them.
28. The crime came to be registered on the basis of the
report lodged by the Non-applicant No.2 on an allegation that,
the Applicants have conspired with the co-accused who are the
officials of the Land Records Office and got mutated space of a
public road of width of 10 feet situated within City Survey Nos.
560 and 561 of Nazul Sheet No.159 in the name of the present
Applicants in Criminal Application (APL) No. 736/2024. It is
alleged that, by hatching conspiracy by all the accused the said
act was done and illegal construction was carried out by the
Applicants in Criminal Application (APL) No. 736/2024 by
amalgamating Plots of City Survey Nos. 560 and 561. It is
further alleged that, they have forged the signatures of various
persons including the Non-applicant No.2 by showing that
notices for measurement were issued. Thus, they have
committed an offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468
and 471 of IPC.
29. On going through the record it reveals that, the
property bearing City Survey No. 561 was originally owned by
21 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
late Shri Bhogilal Parekh admeasuring 303.2 sq.mtr. The extract
of Enquiry Register of City Survey reveals the mutation of the
said City Survey No.561 admeasuring 303.2 sq.mtr., was
recorded in the year 1971. The said property was transferred in
the name of Shri Ramesh Bhogilal Parekh by all the legal heirs
through registered relinquishment deed dated 01.09.1982.
Thereafter said Ramesh Bhogilal Pareksh sold the said land City
Survey No.561 to M/s Arihant Developers vide registered deed
dated 18.08.1998. The said City Survey No.561 was sold by
M/s Arihant Developers in 4 parts to the Applicants namely
Harshad Shah, Meena Shah, Amar Harshad Shah and Chetan
Harshad Shah. M/s Arihant Developers executed a sale deed of
area admeasuring 66.357 sq.mtr., to Harshad Shah vide sale
deed dated 16.06.1999, area of 81.03 sq.mtr., in favour of
Meena Shah vide sale deed dated 16.06.1999, area of 87.97
sq.mtr., to Amar Shah vide sale deed dated 16.06.1999 and area
of 67.56 sq.mtr., to Chetan Shah vide sale deed dated
16.06.1999. All the said sale deeds are filed on record.
30. Similarly, City Survey No.562 was originally owned
by Santosh Radke and Dharmaraj Radke, which they have
22 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
purchased vide sale deed dated 12.10.1965. It was sold to Smt.
Savitaben Mehta, Smt. Swarupaben Mehta and Smt. Kurnudben
Mehta in 1989. The extract of Enquiry Register shows City
Survey No.562 was decreased from 147.53 sq.mtr., to 102.2
sq.mtr. Then the owners of the City Survey No. 562 by obtaining
the order corrected the area from 102.2 sq.mtr., to 126.00
sq.mtr., in a proceeding bearing No. BND/54/57/89-90. The
property bearing City Survey No. 562 was by way of gift deeds
transferred to Shri Parsh Mehta and thereafter the said property
was mortgaged and sold in auction to M/s Gondwana
Construction Private Limited vide letter dated 27.02.2007. M/s
Gondwana Construction Private Limited sold the second floor
and third floor of the building on the City Survey No.562 to Mr.
Nilesh Mehta i.e. Non-applicant No.2 vide sale deed dated
30.09.2008, whereas the ground floor and first floor on the City
Survey No.562 was sold to Smt. Neeta Manish Mehta.
Subsequently, the correction deed was executed and City Survey
No. 562 has been increased from 126 sq.mtr., to 147 sq.mtr.
During investigation it further revealed that, the present
Applicants in Criminal Application (APL) No. 736/2024 applied
for a measurement. Applicant Anil Fuzele who was serving in
23 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
City Survey Office issued the notices in his official capacity and
the land was measured and thereafter by order of the
competent authority it was amalgamated.
31. It is alleged that, the present Applicants have not
constructed the building on Survey Nos. 560 and 561 as per the
sanctioned plan, and therefore, the Non-applicant No.2 has
preferred the suit for injunction. There is no dispute that, suit
bearing R.C.S. No.52/2015 was preferred by the Non-applicant
No.2 against one Neeta Manish Mehta and the present
Applicants contending that they are the lawful owners and are
in peaceful possession of House No.1062 situated on Sheet
No.159. It was alleged by them that, the defendants have
purchased the property i.e. House Nos.1063, 1063A, 1063B and
1063C from M/s Arihant Developers which was situated
towards the north portion of the house of said Non-applicant
No.2 and they have constructed without leaving a space to have
access and construction was on the open space of 10 feet which
is a Government land. The interim injunction was granted in
favour of the Non-applicant No.2.
24 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
32. The property card of City Survey No. 562 having
Sheet No. 159 shows the area shown was 126 sq.mtr. The sale
deed executed in favour of the Non-applicant No.2 also shows
the area as 126 sq.mtr. The four sale deeds which are on record
shows that, the portions which are mentioned earlier were
owned by the Applicants in Criminal Application (APL) No.
736/2024. As per the Applicants, the said Nazul Sheet No.159
and City Survey Nos. 560 and 561 is admeasuring 651 sq.mtr.,
and thereby they applied for amalgamation of both the City
Surveys. The said amalgamation order was passed on
08.07.2020 by the Town Planning Department of Nagpur
Municipal Corporation, Nagpur. Prior to that, the Applicants in
Criminal Application (APL) No. 736/2024 alongwith deceased
Harhasd Amrutlal Shah filed an application on 19.11.2018 for
measurement of City Survey No.561. As per their contentions
City Survey No.561 is 303.02 sq.mtr., whereas as per the vahivat
it is 316.09 sq.mtr.
33. Accordingly, notices were issued by the another
Applicant Anil Fulzele who was working in said office dated
27.09.2019. On the back portion of the said notice, the names
25 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
of Harshad Amrutlal Shah, Meena Harshad Mehta and Amar
Harshad Mehta are mentioned. Similarly, the names of Chetan
Harshad Shah, one Ramchandra Chaturbhuj Sewak, Rakesh
Subhashchandra Madan, Shrikant Dwarkaprasad Kabra,
Sagarmal Jugalkishor Agrawal, Nilesh Amarchand Mehta,
Mangilal Motilal Jain, Smt. Hemlata Vijaykumar Mahendra are
mentioned. Out of that, the signatures of Harshad Amrutlal
Shah, Meena Harshad Mehta and Amar Harshad Mehta are not
appearing. Thereafter the enquiry was conducted after visiting
the spot inspection and report was submitted by Applicant Anil
Fulzele stating that City Survey Nos. 560 and 561 are
admeasuring 348.4 and 303.2 sq.mtr., respectively. It is
subsequently mentioned in the said report, as follows.
“ewG uxj Hkweiku ;kstusrhy lnks”k dk;ZokgheqGs {ks=QGke/;s
rQkor fuekZ.k >kyh vlY;keqGs o o u-Hkw- Ø-561 o 560 P;k
e/;s vlysyh eksdGh tkxk fu”phr u-Hkw-Øzz-561 P;k ekydhph
vkgs fdaok ukgh ? ;kckcr [kk=h dj.kslkBh lnj izdj.kkr ojhy
uewn feGdrh laca/kkus egkjk”Vª tehu eglwy vf/kuh;e 1966
ps dye 20¼2½ uqlkj QsjpkSd”kh gksÅu fu.kZ; ?ks.ks vko”;d
vkgs] vls ;k dk;kZy;kps uez er vkgs-”
34. Thus, it is apparently that, Applicant Anil Fulzele
specifically stated that re-enquiry is required considering the
26 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
difference in the area. After this report, the Superintendent of
Land Records passed an order observing the report of the
Applicant Anil Fulzele and opined as under.
“mijksDr ckchpk fopkj djrk] ekStk ukxiwj ;sFkhy f”kV Øekad
159] uxj Hkwekiu Øekad 560 o 561 rlsp lnjgq uxj
Hkwekiu Øekadke/;s vlysyh eksdGh tkxk ;k feGdrhckcr uxj
Hkwekiu vf/kdkjh Ø- 1] ukxiwj ;kauh lknj dsysY;k lanfHkZ; Ø-2
ps izLrkokps vuq”kaxkus egkjk”Vª tehu eglwy vf/kfu;e] 1966 ps
dey 20¼2½ vUo;s dk;Zokgh dj.ksdjhrk ijokuxh ns.ks mphr
gksbZy vls eyk okVrs- lcc ekStk ukxiwj ;sFkhy f’kV Øekad
159] uxj Hkwekiu Øekad 560 o 561 rlsp lnjgq uxj
Hkwekiu Øekadke/;s vlysyh eksdGh tkxk ;k feGdrhckcr
egkjk”Vª tehu eglwy vf/kfu;e] 1966 ps dye 20¼2½ vUo;s
Qsj gDd pkSd’kh d:u ;ksX; rks fu.kZ; ikjhr dj.;kph uxj
Hkwekiu vf/kdkjh Ø-1] ukxiwj ;kauk ijokuxh ns.;kr ;srs vkgs-
uxj Hkqekiu vf/kdkjh Ø- 1 ukxiwj ;kauh laca/khr blekaps@
/kkjdkadMhy ekydh gDdkckcrps eqG nLr,sot] bZR;knhaps rlsp
izR;{k rkck ofgokV] bZR;knhaph rikl.kh d:u loZ fgrlaca/khrkauk
lquko.khph la/kh iznku d:u fo”ks’kr% u>wy foHkkxkl]
egkuxjikfydk ukxiwj] ukxiwj lq/kkj izU;kl ukxiwj] bZR;knhauk
rlsp loZ pkSd”kh d:u “kklukps fgrkl ck/kk u ;srk
fu;ekuqlkj Qsj gDd pkSd”kh dj.;kph dk;Zokgh djkoh- o
vuqikyu vgoky bdMhy dk;kZy;kl fjrlj lknj djkok-”
35. As noted earlier that, back portion of the notice
issued on 27.09.2019 there are no signatures of Harshad
Amrutlal Shah, Meena Harshad Mehta and Amar Harshad
Mehta. It is specifically alleged that, the signatures of Shrikant
27 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
Dwarkaprasad Kabra, Mangilal Motilal Jain, Smt. Hemlata
Vijaykumar Mahendra and Ramchandra Chaturbhujji Sewak are
appearing on the back portion of the said notice dated
27.09.2019, whereas these persons died long back. Similarly,
Harshad Amrutlal Shah died on 04.10.2019. In fact on perusal
of the said document it reveals that Harshad Amrutlal Shah’s
signature is not appearing and it is specifically mentioned that
his signature is on the first page but the first page also nowhere
shows his signature. It is specifically contended by the Applicant
Anil Fulzele that, his role is only to the extent of issuing the
notices and he is not the person who served the notices, and
therefore, he has no knowledge as to the service of said notices
and whether the persons are alive or dead. Admittedly, the
statements of relatives of these persons shows that, they died
long back. The property card issued subsequently to the
issuance of notice also shows that City Survey No. 561 having
Nazul sheet No.159 is admeasuring 303.2 sq.mtr., and City
Survey No. 560 is admeasuring 348.4 sq.mtr. All the
transactions which were done in respect of the said properties
are appearing in a property card. Admittedly, the application for
seeking measurement of both the lands are filed by Harshad
28 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
Shah on 11.09.2018 i.e. during his lifetime, and therefore, his
signature is appearing on the said Application.
36. Learned Senior Counsel for the Non-applicant No.2
vehemently submitted that there is open space in between City
Survey Nos. 560 and 561. The map also shows the said open
space. After receipt of the complaint by the NMC from the
Non-applicant No.2, notice for removal of the encroachment
was given to the Applicants. The report of the NMC shows that,
the Applicants have not carried out the construction as per the
sanctioned plan and got sanctioned by them, there is an
encroachment, and therefore, the Applicants were directed to
remove the encroachment. The communication of NMC is dated
18.08.2018 and 04.05.2018. Thus, as far as the investigation
papers are concerned, which definitely shows that, there is an
encroachment by the present Applicants on the Government
land in view of the communication issued by the NMC.
37. Now, the question is whether this act of the
encroachment would be sufficient to held that the present
Applicants have committed an offence punishable under
Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Admittedly, the entire
29 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
investigation papers nowhere reveals the allegations that it was
these accused persons or the Applicants who have forged the
signatures of the persons who are already dead. There is no
whisper in the entire investigation papers that these signatures
are put by the present Applicants or the Applicant Anil Fulzele.
As far as the Applicant Anil Fulzele is concerned, his role is only
to the extent of issuing the notices of measurement and
submitted a report. Admittedly, no investigation is carried out to
show that it was the Applicant Anil Fulzele who has served the
said notices, and therefore, he was aware about the death of the
said persons. No investigation is further carried out to ascertain
that the present Applicants were knowing about the death of the
persons to whom notices were issued to remain present.
Admittedly, they are not the relatives of the present Applicants,
and therefore, there is no reason for them to have knowledge
about their death.
38. Learned Senior Counsel for the Non-applicant No.2
and learned APP submitted that, in pursuance of the conspiracy
hatched by the present Applicants, this act was conducted.
Admittedly, except the allegations there is no material collected
30 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
to show that the present Applicants entered into the conspiracy
with the co-accused who are the officers of the Land Records
and in pursuance of the said conspiracy they have done the said
act. Admittedly, direct evidence would not be available
regarding the conspiracy as it always hatched in a secrecy but
there requires some material to show that by joining hands with
each other, the said act is committed by the present Applicants.
In absence of the evidence at the stage of investigation it would
be difficult to say that there was a conspiracy by the present
Applicants. Similarly, the entire investigation papers nowhere
discloses that it was the present Applicants who have forged the
said documents.
39. Mr. Manohar, learned Counsel for the Applicants,
rightly submitted in view of judgment by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy (supra), by
referring the judgment of Sheila Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharaj,
that to attract Section 464 of IPC, the prosecution must
establish that the accused had made the fake document. No
material connecting the accused to the making of the fake
document has been adduced in the impugned charge-sheet.
31 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
Similar is the case in the present crime, as there is no single
document or even an allegation that it was the present
Applicants who have forged the signatures of the dead persons.
40. The ingredients of offence of cheating described in
Section 415 is that, “Whoever, by deceiving any person,
fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to
deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any
person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the
person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would
not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or
omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that
person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.”
41. To hold a person guilty of cheating as defined under
Section 415 of IPC, it is necessary to show that he had
fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the
promise with an intention to retain the property. In other words,
Section 415 of IPC which defines cheating, requires deception of
any person:
(a) inducing that person to,
32 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
(b) to deliver any property to any person,
(c) to consent that any person shall retain any property,
and
(d) intentionally induces that person to do or omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so
deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to
cause damage or harm to that person, anybody’s mind,
reputation or property.
42. To attract the offence punishable under Section 467
of IPC, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence
punishable under this Section are:
(i) commission of forgery;
(ii) that such commission of forgery must be in
relation to a document purporting to be
(a) a valuable property; or
(b) a will; or
(c) an authority to adopt a son; or
(d) which purports to give authority to any
person to make or transfer any valuable
security; or
(e) the receive the principle, interest or
dividends thereon; or
33 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
(f) to receive or deliver any money, movable
property or valuable security, or any document
purporting to be an acquittance or receipt
acknowledging the payment of money, or
(g) an acquittance or receipt for the delivery
of any movable property or valuable security.
43. Offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC:
(i) Commission of forgery,
(ii) that he did so intending that the document
or electronic record forged shall be used for
the purpose of cheating.
44. Now, the question is whether the allegations in the
aforesaid application are sufficient to constitute the alleged
offence. I have already extracted the said contents raised in the
application filed by the Non-applicant No.2 against the
Applicants in its entirety. Even accepting the said allegations as
it is, at the most it is revealed that the Applicants have not
constructed as per the sanctioned plan and they have
encroached upon the Government land. The materials on record
pertaining to the entire investigation papers shows that, except
the allegations of the encroachment no other allegation sustains
in view of the entire investigation papers.
34 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
45. Learned Senior Counsel for the Non-applicant No.2,
vehemently submitted that, the mini trial is not expected at this
stage. There is no dispute regarding the settled position of law.
Admittedly, the mini trial is not permissible while considering
the application for quashing.
46. He placed reliance on Central Bureau of
Investigation (supra), wherein this settled position is reiterated
by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the case of Dharambeer Kumar
Singh (supra), wherein considering the facts of that case it is
observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that, the High Court ought
to have considered the complicity of the accused in case of
forgery. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is designed to achieve the
purpose of ensuring that criminal proceedings are not permitted
to generate into weapons of harassment.
47. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Usha
Chakraborty & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., (2023) 15
SCC 135, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court refers the decision of
State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp.(1)
SCC 335, wherein the powers of quashing can be exercised in
the following circumstances, which reads as under:-
35 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
“(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 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.”
48. In the said judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court further
refers the decision of Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand
& Ors., 2013(11) SCC 673, which reads as under:-
36 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
“12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is
to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure
ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal
offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged
therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence
are present or not has to be judged by the High court. A
complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a
criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a
dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak
of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is
available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this
case, the High court should not hesitate to quash the
criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the
court.”
49. In is further held by the Hon’ble Apex Court is the
case of Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, 3 (2015) 8
SCC 293, which reads as under:-
“13. It is true that a given set of facts may make out a civil
wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil
remedy may be available to the complainant that itself
cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The
real test is whether the allegations in the complaint
disclose the criminal offence of cheating or not. In the 2
(2015) 8 SCC 293 present case there is nothing to show
that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf
of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition
precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC. In our
view the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence
at all. The criminal proceedings should not be encouraged
when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of
the process of the court. The superior courts while
exercising this power should also strive to serve the ends of
justice. In our opinion in view of these facts allowing the
police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse
of the process of the court and the High Court committed
an error in refusing to exercise the power under Section
482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the
proceedings.”
37 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
50. After carefully scrutinizing the Applications filed by
the Applicants in the light of the allegations levelled against
them and the entire investigation papers did not contain the
ingredients to constitute the alleged offences. It nowhere
discloses that, the Complainant had made out a prima facie case
against the present Applicants. Moreover, the investigation
papers shows that the FIR came to be lodged against the present
Applicants in view of the directions given by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., in
Cri.M.A. No. 3479/2022. During pendency of Cri.M.A. No.
3479/2022 another application bearing Misc.Cri.No. 1653/2023
was filed without mentioning pendency of application bearing
Cri.M.A. No. 3479/2022. Subsequently, Misc.Cri.No. 1653/2023
was withdrawn. Thus, the Non-applicant No.2 has concealed the
fact that initially also he has filed an application for seeking
directions under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C but the same was
withdrawn. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the
position that in order to cause registration of FIR and
consequential investigation based on the same under Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Non-applicant No.2 must satisfy the
essential ingredients to attract the alleged offence. If such
38 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
allegations in the application are vague and are not specific with
respect to the alleged offences it cannot lead to an order for
registration of an F.I.R. and investigation on the accusation of
commission of the offences alleged.
51. As observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Usha Chakraborty & Anr. (supra) in para 18 which reads as
under:
“By non-disclosure the respondent has, in troth, concealed
the existence of a pending civil suit between him and the
appellants herein before a competent civil court which
obviously is the causative incident for the respondent’s
allegation of perpetration of the aforesaid offences against
the appellants. We will deal with it further and also its
impact a little later.”
52. Here in the present case also the present
Non-applicant No.2 has not disclosed regarding his previous
application filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and its
withdrawal.
53. As observed earlier, a bare perusal of the said
allegations and the entire documents, the ingredients which
require to constitute the offence are not made out and the entire
investigation papers and documents would reveal that the
39 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
allegations are vague and they did not carry the essential
ingredients to constitute the offence. There is absolutely no
allegation either in the FIR or any of the statements that it was
the present Applicants who have forged by forging the
signatures of the dead persons and thereby they have
committed an offence of forgery as well as cheat.
54. The factual position thus would reveal that the
genesis as also the purpose of criminal proceeding is nothing
but to involve the present Applicants in a criminal offence
though the dispute involved is essentially of civil nature.
Moreover, the Non-applicant No.2 has already availed the civil
remedy which is pending in the above circumstances coupled
with the fact in respect of the issue involved which is of a civil
nature, the Non-applicant No.2 has already approached the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court by instituting a civil suit and it is
already pending. Moreover, there is no doubt with respect to the
fact that, the ingredients of the offence are not made out to
constitute the offence. Even accepting the allegations as it is,
therefore for all above reasons I am of the considered opinion
that, this is a fit case wherein the powers under Section 482 of
40 APL.736-2024 & ANR..JUDGMENT.odt
Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR registered based on the direction of the
Magistrate Court in the aforesaid Applications and all further
proceedings in pursuance thereof I have no hesitation to hold
that permitting continuance of the criminal proceedings against
the present Applicants in the aforesaid circumstances would
result in abuse of the process of the Court and also in
miscarriage of justice. In the result, the Applications deserves to
be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
i. Criminal Application (APL) Nos. 736/2024 and
720/2024 are allowed.
ii. The First Information Report in connection with
Crime No. 999/2023 registered with Police Station
Tahsil, District Nagpur for the offence punishable
under Sections 420, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 167,
120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and consequent proceeding arising out of the same
bearing R.C.C. No.5110/2025, are hereby quashed
and set aside to the extent of present Applicants.
55. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
S.D.Bhimte
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/04/2026 19:23:57