Bombay High Court
LAXMAN SOPAN MAMADGEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The court held that the applicant is a bonafide purchaser and no offence under the cited IPC sections is established, thereby granting the quashment of the FIR.
Summary
The applicant, Laxman Sopan Mamadge, filed an application seeking the quashment of FIR No. 0097/2023 and the accompanying charge‑sheet for alleged offences under Sections 420, 406, 447, 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The dispute centres on Gat No. 69, where the informant claims to have entered into an agreement to purchase 40 R of land in 2017 and later alleges that the applicant encroached on his property after the applicant obtained a registered sale deed from the original owner on 6 October 2022. The applicant contends that he is a bonafide purchaser, having acquired the land through a lawful registered deed and having issued a public notice prior to purchase, and asserts that no offence is made out against him. The State and the informant opposed the relief, alleging that the sale deed was obtained in collusion and that the applicant’s conduct amounts to cheating under Section 420 IPC. The court examined the FIR and found no prima facie evidence linking the applicant to the offences, noting that the sale deed was valid and the applicant acted as a bona‑fide purchaser. Consequently, the court allowed the application and ordered the quashment of the FIR and charge‑sheet.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR and charge‑sheet against the applicant can be quashed on the ground that no offence under Sections 420, 406, 447, 427 IPC is made out.
- Whether the applicant, as a bonafide purchaser of the land, can be held liable for cheating, criminal breach of trust, mischief or criminal conspiracy.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 406, 420, 427, 447
Subjects
- land dispute
- bonafide purchaser
- FIR quashment
- Section 420 IPC
- criminal procedure
- property encroachment
Judgment
-1-
criappln2137.23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
934 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2137 OF 2023
Laxman Sopan Mamadge ….Applicant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & another …..Respondents
Mr. H. P. Randhir, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. A. R. Kale, APP for the State.
Mr. A. R. Rathod, Advocate for the informant.
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
PER COURT :
1. Applicant seeks quashment of First Information Report
bearing Crime No. 0097/2023 registered with Murud Police Station,
Tq. & District Latur for offence punishable under Sections 420, 406,
447, 427 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and consequential charge-
sheet No. 66/2023 filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Latur.
2. First Information Report indicates that the informant, who
claims himself to be the owner of entire Gat No. 69 on the basis of
purchase of the same from the erstwhile owner, claims that on
14.05.2017 in respect of 40 R land agreement to sale was executed
-2-
criappln2137.23.odt
with the original owner. He claims that on payment of
Rs. 1,35,000/- he came into possession of the said property. There
is allegation that on 06.10.2022, the same property is sold by the
owner to the present Applicant by executing registered sale-deed in
his favour. Informant alleges that on 25.11.2022, Applicant
encroached in his property. On the basis of these allegations, report
came to be lodged. It was investigated and culminated into filing of
charge-sheet.
3. Applicant is the purchaser of the said property. According to
him, first informant had entered into agreement to sale on
14.05.2017 in respect of 40 R land however, no sale-deed was
executed thereafter. It is his submission that in any case, there is no
allegation against the present Applicant of committing any offence
since he has lawfully purchased the subject property under
registered sale-deed from original owner. It is also submitted that
prior to purchase of the said property, public notice was issued in
that regard. According to him, even if all the allegations are accepted
to be true, no offence is made out against the Applicant.
-3-
criappln2137.23.odt
4. Learned APP and learned Counsel for the informant opposed
grant of any relief to the Applicant. It is the contention of learned
Counsel for the informant that that the entire gat No. 69 was
purchased by the informant and nothing remains to be sold from the
said land. It is his submission that the present Applicant in
collusion with the co-accused i.e. original owner of the said land has
got the sale-deed executed in his favour. This, according to him,
amounts offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.
5. Prima facie perusal of the First Information Report indicates
that it is the case of the informant that on 14.05.2017 agreement to
sale was entered into in respect of purchase of 40 R land. However,
admittedly, there is no sale-deed executed by the original owner in
his favour with regard to the said land. There is no dispute about the
fact that after issuance of public notice with regard to the intention of
the Applicant to purchase the said property, registered sale-deed
came to be executed by owner in his favour of 06.10.2022. Further,
there is no prima facie substance in the contention that 40R land
was not available for sale from Gat No. 69. This contention cannot be
accepted in view of the case of the informant that he entered into
-4-
criappln2137.23.odt
agreement to sale in respect of the said property with the original
owner.
6. In any case, present Applicant apparently seems to be the
bonafide purchaser of the land in question. No offence under Section
420 of Indian Penal Code gets attracted against him. As far as
offence under Sections 406, 447, 427 of Indian Penal Code are
concerned, there is no evidence against the Applicant. Even if the
entire evidence on record is accepted to be true, it fails to make out
any case against the Applicant. Hence, application is allowed in
terms of prayer clauses ‘B’, ‘B-A’ and ‘B-B’.
( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
dyb
Checking your session…