VANDANA W/O SUHAS DHENGLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:42079-DB




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          927 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1203 OF 2024

                                   VANDANA W/O SUHAS DHENGLE
                                               VERSUS
                            THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                                  ...
           Mr. Pratik Arvind Bhosle, Advocate for Applicant
           Mr. S. P. Joshi, APP for the Respondent/State

                                                      CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                      DATED     : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.    The record shows that respondent No.2 has been served. Today,

           respondent No.2 is absent. It appears that respondent No.2 is not interested in

           opposing the present application. Hence, the application is taken up for

           hearing in the absence of respondent No.2.

           2.    This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

           seeks quashing of the First Information Report in C.R. No. 516/2023,

           registered with Kadim Police Station, District Jalna, for the offence punishable

           under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

           3.    The First Information Report indicates that, on 18.03.2016, an

           agreement to sell came to be executed between the informant and the present

           applicant in respect of Plot No.60, situated at Yogeshwari Nagar, Old Jalna.

           The parties had agreed for the sale and purchase of the said property for a


           927 APPLN 1203.2024.odt                                                   1 of 3
total consideration of Rs.56,60,000/-. According to the informant, a sum of

Rs.40,00,000/- was paid at the time of execution of the agreement to sell, and

the remaining amount of Rs.16,60,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of

execution of the sale deed. Further allegations in the First Information Report

indicate that, despite repeated requests made by the informant, the applicant

failed to execute the sale deed. Hence, the offence came to be registered.

4.    Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that, even if the allegations

in the First Information Report are accepted to be true, the dispute is

essentially with regard to the sale and purchase of the property and is civil in

nature. It is his submission that, in the absence of the ingredients of any

criminal offence being made out, the present case is a fit case for quashing of

the proceedings. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunti and Ors. Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., MANU/SC/0534/2023.

5.    Learned APP opposed the grant of any relief to the applicant by

referring to the allegations made against the applicant in the First Information

Report. It is his submission that, despite receiving a substantial amount of

Rs.40 lakhs, the applicant has failed to execute the sale deed and, therefore, a

prima facie offence is made out against the applicant.

6.    Perusal of the First Information Report as well as the charge-sheet

indicates that the transaction between the parties pertains to the sale of Plot

927 APPLN 1203.2024.odt                                                      2 of 3
No.60 situated at Old Jalna. Even if the allegations in the First Information

Report are accepted in their entirety, the dispute cannot travel beyond a civil

transaction between the parties. Needless to say, the remedy available to the

informant was to file a suit for specific performance of the contract if he

intended to proceed with the transaction, or to seek refund of the amount

paid by him. In any case, a purely civil dispute cannot be impermissible

converted into a criminal dispute. The judgment in the case of Kunti (supra)

squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Hence, the following order:

                                    ORDER

            .      The application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘C’, ‘C-

                   1’ and ‘C-2’.


                                                      ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp




927 APPLN 1203.2024.odt                                                    3 of 3