I am afraid this contention cannot be heard in law. The law of this subject is very well settled. The Apex Court in the matter of S.Saktivel (Dead) By Lrs vs. M.Venugopal Pillai And Ors [MANU/SC/0499/2000 : 2000:INSC:395 : AIR 2000 SC 2633] has held that terms of registered agreement can be altered only by another registered agreement. This important fact was not considered by both the Courts. {Para 16}
17. Admittedly, there is a registered document which defines the relationship between the First Informant and the present Applicants as that of Vendor and Seller. This is a document which is in the nature of sale-deed. Since the payment has been paid and the title has been transferred therefore, there is no question of their being any contrary interpretation of those documents. The reliance on the part of the First Informant upon the un-registered separate agreement dated 07.05.2014 and the Paratfed Agreement (re-payment agreement) dated 09.10.2016 is without any substance in as much as there documents were never executed by the Applicants but it was executed only by the Accused No. 1.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (KOLHAPUR BENCH)
Criminal Application No. 921 of 2025
Prabhakar Rajaram Kshirsagar and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Sandesh D. Patil, J.
Decided On: 24.07.2026
Citation: MANU/MH/5420/2026
1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposed of finally.
3. By the present Criminal Application, the Applicant has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 01.01.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur, below Exhibit-23 in Regular Criminal Case No. 1235 of 2018, and the Judgment and Order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 61 of 2025, whereby the Applicant's application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be rejected.
4. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the present Criminal Application are that Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint with the Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur.
5. It is contention of the Respondent No. 2-First Informant that he and his brother were the owner of Survey No. 132/2 situated at Solapur. On 22.04.2014 Isar Pavati which is in the nature of Memorandum of Understanding was executed between the Complainant and his brother and one Accused No. 1-Mr. Amol Sonkawade with respect to Survey No. 132/2, the total amount was mentioned to Rs. 2,84,00,000/-. An amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- was given by the Accused No. 1 vide cheques, however one cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- was bounced.
6. Thereafter on 07.05.2014 a sale-deed was executed between the Respondent No. 2, his brother and the Applicants with respect to the Survey Number 132/2. In this sale-deed the Accused No. 1 was a confirming party and by this sale-deed and the said property bearing no. 132/2 was sold to the Applicants herein.
7. It is the contention of the First Informant that, on the same day, a separate unregistered agreement was executed between the First Informant, his brother, and Accused No. 1 in respect of Survey No. 132/2. The Applicants are not parties to the said unregistered agreement.
8. By that agreement it was agreed that the amount of Rs. 2,84,00,000/- was due from the Accused No. 1. There were certain other transaction in the nature of sale-deed dated 22.05.2014 between Accused No. 1 and the First Informant. Those sale-deed however where in respect of certain other properties. There was also a Paratfed (re-payment agreement) executed on 09.10.2016 between the First Informant, his brother, and Accused No. 1 wherein it was mentioned that out of total amount of Rs. 2,84,00,000/- (transaction in respect of Survey No. 132/2 situated at Solapur) only in amount of Rs. 1,17,00,000/- were paid and remaining amount of Rs. 1,67,00,000/- were not paid hence in these premises the First Informant had lodged complaint under the provision of Section 420 of the IPC.
9. Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that the present transaction is a civil transaction. He submits that once a sale-deed was executed by the First Informant in favour of the Applicants and it was registered on 07.05.2014 wherein there was a recital that the total consideration was fixed to the tune of Rs. 70,00,000/- and it was received by the first informant, there is no question of their being an offence under the provisions of Section 420, 34 of the IPC. He submits that the registered document speaks for itself and that there is a relationship between the parties namely the Applicants and the Respondent No. 2 as Purchaser and Vendor and the title of the property is transferred to them. He submits that there is already a civil suit filed by the Respondent No. 2 in the Civil Court. He however submits that civil suit is not part of the charge-sheet.
10. Be that as it may, he submits that since the dispute is essentially of a civil nature, there is no question of setting the criminal law into motion.
11. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 on the other hand submitted that the offence of 420 has been made out. He submits that Section 34 is invoked in this matter. He submits that although a registered sale-deed was executed on 07.05.2014 between the Applicants and the Informant with respect to Survey No. 132/2, yet on the same day a separate agreement was executed between the First Informant and the Accused No. 1 wherein the Accused No. 1 had agreed to the contrary to what is mentioned in the registered sale-deed. He admits that applicants were not party to the said unregistered agreement. He also states that there was a Paratfed Agreement (re-payment Agreement) on 09.10.2016 between the first informant and the Accused No. 1 where the accused no. 1 had agreed that there would be a re-payment of the total amount and it is in this agreement the reference of the sale-deed dated 07.05.2014 is mentioned. He submitted that both the Courts have answered against the Applicant and that this Court exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482, should not interfere into the concurrent findings of facts of both the Courts.
12. The learned APP supported the argument of Mr. Gaikwad the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2.
13. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, the gravamen of the allegations made by the First Informant is that the Sale Deed dated 07.05.2014 was, in fact, a transaction forming part of the Isar Pavati (Memorandum of Understanding) dated 22.04.2014 executed between the First Informant and Accused No. 1. The contention of the prosecution is that the Applicants, in collusion with Accused No. 1, duped the First Informant of an amount of Rs. 1,97,00,000/-.
14. I have perused the charge-sheet as well as the impugned judgments and orders passed by the Courts below.
15. Both the Courts below have rejected the Application below Exhibit-23 filed by the Applicant under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. Upon in depth perusal of the charge-sheet, it is clear that the Applicants herein have acquired the title in respect of the property by virtue of a registered sale-deed dated 07.05.2014. This sale-deed is between the Applicants and the First Informant and his brother. I have perused the recital of the said sale-deed which mentions that the total consideration of the sale-deed is Rs. 70,00,000/-. I have also perused the receipt clause of the said sale-deed which mentions that the total consideration was Rs. 70,00,000/- and was received by the First Informant on the same day. Thus, this being the position there is a registered sale-deed which stares on the face of the First Informant. The First Informant however wants to canvass his case that notwithstanding the registered sale-deed there was another un-registered agreement on 07.05.2014 where a separate arrangement was made between the First Informant and the Accused No.1 which was contrary to the contents of the sale-deed.
16. I am afraid this contention cannot be heard in law. The law of this subject is very well settled. The Apex Court in the matter of S.Saktivel (Dead) By Lrs vs. M.Venugopal Pillai And Ors [MANU/SC/0499/2000 : 2000:INSC:395 : AIR 2000 SC 2633] has held that terms of registered agreement can be altered only by another registered agreement. This important fact was not considered by both the Courts.
17. Admittedly, there is a registered document which defines the relationship between the First Informant and the present Applicants as that of Vendor and Seller. This is a document which is in the nature of sale-deed. Since the payment has been paid and the title has been transferred therefore, there is no question of their being any contrary interpretation of those documents. The reliance on the part of the First Informant upon the un-registered separate agreement dated 07.05.2014 and the Paratfed Agreement (re-payment agreement) dated 09.10.2016 is without any substance in as much as there documents were never executed by the Applicants but it was executed only by the Accused No. 1.
18. It appears that this is a civil transaction. At no point of time the First Informant can lay any claim upon the land in question or on the Applicants on the basis of the Complaint. The other documents namely Isar Pavati dated 22.04.2014; un-registered Agreement dated 07.05.2014 and Paratfed Agreement dated 09.10.2016 are of no avail to the case of the Applicant. It is further important to note that in none of this agreement the Applicants are party. The prosecution based on the provisions of Section 420 is also quite untenable when there is registered document to the effect which clearly shows that the Applicants had paid the amount and that there is civil suit to declare that document as illegal, there would be no question of attracting provisions of Section 420 in the present case.
19. Even otherwise it is settled by catena of judgments of the Apex Court where the offence under Section 420 is interpreted. It is settled law that in order to make out an offence under Section 420, what is necessary is to show that there was offence of cheating right from the inception.
20. In the present case there may by such averment against the Accused No. 1 however as far as the present applicants are concerned, the documents on record clearly shows that they were not a part of transaction of the earlier agreement dated 22.04.2014 (Isar Pavati) or the separate Agreement dated 07.05.2014 or the Paratfed Agreement dated 09.10.2016. Hence, there is no question of an offence being made out under Section 420. This Court has repeatedly observed that the criminal process cannot be permitted to be misused for settling personal scores, wreaking vengeance, or converting criminal proceedings into recovery proceedings.
21. The Apex Court in the matter of G. Sagar Suri and another vs. State of U. P. and others [MANU/SC/0045/2000 : 2000:INSC:34 : (2000) 2 SCC 636] has deprecated the practice of invoking criminal proceeding in order to extract economic gains in civil matters. Paragraph No. 8 of the Judgment reads as under:
"8. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction the High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
22. Thus no offence under Section 420 can be said to have been committed by the Respondent. The impugned Judgments and Orders have failed to address this important issue and they have addressed only on the peripheral issue. While deciding Application under Section 227 of the Cr. P.C. the Court should be very cautious in order to see that they do not act as mere post office of the prosecution. Each and every document which is before the Court in the nature of charge-sheet has to be analyzed. In this case the Courts below have failed to discharge their obligations while exercising their jurisdiction under Section 227.
23. Before parting, I must mention that the aforesaid observations are confined only to the case of the present Applicants. This Court has not made any observations touching upon the role of the other accused persons, and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order.
24. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgments and orders require interference by this Court. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(a) The Criminal Application is allowed.
(b) The impugned Judgment and Order dated 01.01.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur below Exhibit-23 in RCC No. 1235 of 2018 and the Order dated 23.07.2025 in Criminal Revision Application No. 61 of 2025 passed by the learned Sessions Court, Solapur are hereby quashed and set aside.
(c) Rule is made absolute.
25. The Criminal Application stands disposed of.
26. It is further made clear that the aforesaid observations have been made solely for the purpose of deciding the present application for discharge. Any civil proceedings pending between the parties shall be decided independently on their own merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made in this order.
No comments:
Post a Comment