Page 1

1

  Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.985 OF 2016

Jairam S/o Nathu Salunke                ….Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Anr.        …. Respondents

J U D G M E N T  

Uday U. Lalit, J.

1. This appeal arising from S.L.P (Crl.) No.8553 of 2015  challenges the

Judgment and Order dated 30.03.2015 passed by the High Court of

Bombay at Aurangabad  in Criminal Application No.1358 of 2012.

Said Criminal  Application was filed for  quashing of  FIR of Crime

No.264  of  2011 and  the  consequential  charge-sheet  leading  to  the

registration  of  RCC  No.1100  of  2012  in  the  Court  of  Judicial

Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad.

Page 2

2

2. Crime No.264 of 2011 was registered with City Chowk Police Station,

Aurangabad pursuant to FIR registered on 20.09.2011 at the instance

of  Purushottam  Kulkarni,  Assistant  Director,  Town  Planning,

Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. It was alleged that four  accused

namely  Jairam  Salunke-  the  appellant,  Sitaram  Shankar  Gaikwad,

Suresh  C.  Kapale,  the  then  Special  Land  Acquisition  Officer,

Aurangabad and A.F. Ansari,  the then Director  Planning,  Office of

Land Acquisition, Aurangabad had entered into a conspiracy, pursuant

to which fabricated documents were created and in land acquisition

proceedings concerning land bearing City Survey No. 20722, situated

within  the  limits  of  Aurangabad  Corporation,  compensation  to  the

tune  of  Rs.23.48  lacs  was  received  by the  appellant  without  there

being any entitlement. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed

on 29.06.2012 against aforementioned four accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 406, 409 read with Section 120(B) of IPC.

The basic allegations in the charge sheet were:-

“  It  was found in investigation that  the accused did not properly verify the documents pertaining to land bearing No.  20722,  during the  land  acquisition  proceedings  and without  calling  for  search  report  and  relying  upon  the fabricated documents submitted by accused No. 1 and in conspiracy with each other caused loss to the Corporation

Page 3

3

to the tune of Rs. 2348993/- by taking compensation of the said amount and thereby cheated the corporation.”

3. Soon thereafter Criminal Application Nos.1358 of 2012 and 1361 of

2012 were filed by the appellant and said Suresh C. Kapale, the then

Special  Land  Acquisition  Officer  respectively.  It  was  principally

submitted that :-

a.  Regular Civil Suit No.81 of 1993 was filed by Shanti

Gunwani and six others against Vishwanath Nikalje for

injunction,  contending that  the plaintiffs had purchased

eight  residential  plots  from  one  Onkargiri  Gosavi,

admeasuring about  6249 sq.m which  land  was  part  of

CTS No.20722, Aurangabad.

b. In  June  1995,  there  was  a  compromise  between  the

parties whereunder the defendant accepted the ownership

of  the  plaintiffs.   The  compromise  deed  also  made

reference to the fact that from and out of land purchased

by  said  Shanti  Gunwani   and  six  others,  a  portion

admeasuring 50000 sq. feet was made over by them in

Page 4

4

favour of Karbhari Gaikwad, Prakash  Nannaware  and

Dilip Bhalerao (‘three persons’, for short).

c. The appellant had taken on lease for a period of 99 years

that plot of land from said three persons.

d. In the circumstances,  the appellant  was entitled to and

was rightly granted compensation in respect of  the land

by   accused  Suresh  C.  Kapale,  the  then  Special  Land

Acquisition Officer.

With these assertions, it was contended that the transaction in question

was purely  of  civil  nature;  that  the  appellant  was  entitled  to  and rightly

granted compensation and as such case for quashing under Section 482 Cr.

P.C. was  made out.

4. Both these applications were heard together by the High Court and

dismissed  by  its  judgment  and  Order  dated  30.03.2015.  The

contentions were considered in the light  of the record by the High

Court as under:-

“The aforesaid record shows that Onkargiri Gosavi, predecessor of the plaintiffs of RCS No.81/1993 was not title holder and so there  was  no  question  of  passing  of  the  tile  to  the  plaintiff, Gunwani and others.  No sale-deed was executed by Gunwani

Page 5

5

and other plaintiffs in favour of the three persons like Karbhari, Prakhash Nannaware and Dilip Bhalerao. On the basis of some mention in the settlement document filed in the aforesaid suit, the  title  could  not  have  been passed in  favour  of  these  three persons. Thus no weight could have been given to the so called lease  document  executed  by these  three  persons  in  favour  of Salunke.  Further  in  the  lease  document  also  it  was  not mentioned that rent of 99 years was given by Salunke to these three  persons.  All  these  circumstances  can  be  used  to  draw inference  against  Salunke.  The  old  CTS  record  shows  that initially  Nawab  of  Hyderabad  was  shown  as  owner  and thereafter name of Onkargiri Gosavi was entered. There is no document of title with Onkargiri Gosavi and there is nothing to hold  that,  title  was  passed  to  Onkargiri  Gosavi.  These circumstances  cannot  be  ignored  but  the  Land  Acquisition Officer has ignored these circumstances. The revenue record or the CTS record can never confer title and there was no document of title with Salunke. In spite of these circumstances, the final award was made in his favour.  

5.      The appellant as well as said Suresh C. Kapale filed a joint petition

namely S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.8553-8554 of 2015 challenging the aforesaid

judgment and order of the High Court, in which notice was issued by

this  Court  on 01.10.2015.  During the pendency of  the matter, said

Suresh  C.  Kapale  died,  as  a  result  of  which  the  petition  qua  him

namely S.L.P. (Crl.) No.8554 of 2015 was dismissed as abated vide

Order dated 09.09.2016.

6. Mr.  Manish  Pitale,  learned  Advocate  appearing  for  the  appellant

submitted that at the initial stage the matter was looked into by the

Assistant  Commissioner of  Police who had opined that  the dispute

Page 6

6

was purely of civil  nature and yet the crime was registered. It  was

further submitted that the allegations that the land in the question did

not belong to the appellant could only be resolved by the Civil Court

and as such the case was fit for exercise of jurisdiction under Section

482 Cr. P.C.

7. We have gone through the record and considered rival submissions.

The  High  Court  found  three  infirmities  namely  that  Onkargiri,

predecessor of the plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.81 of 1993 did

not have any title; that no sale deed was executed by the plaintiffs in

favour of said three persons; and that the document of lease stated to

be in favour of the appellant did not mention any rent at all. In the

face of these observations it cannot be said that the dispute in question

was  purely  of  civil  nature.  If  on  the  basis  of  false  and  fraudulent

documents a claim is made which leads to award of compensation in

land  acquisition  matter,  the  interest  of  the  State  is  certainly

compromised or adversely affected.  The matter cannot then be termed

as  a  civil  dispute  simplicitor.  The  crime  was  therefore  rightly

registered.

8.    Affirming the view taken by the High Court, we do not find any

reason to quash the criminal proceedings. The appellant is certainly

Page 7

7

entitled to present  his view on merits which will  be gone into and

considered by the concerned Court at the appropriate stage. We thus

find no merit in the matter and dismiss the present appeal.  

..………………………..J. (Dipak Misra)

…………..……………..J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi January 3, 2017