JAIRAM S/O NATHU SALUNKE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
Section 120 B - Punishment of criminal conspiracy
Section 406 - Punishment for criminal breach of trust
Section 409 - Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Crl.), 985 of 2016, Judgment Date: Jan 03, 2017
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.
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.
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 to the tune of Rs. 2348993/-
by taking compensation of the said amount and thereby cheated the
corporation.”
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 :-
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.
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 favour of Karbhari Gaikwad, Prakash Nannaware and
Dilip Bhalerao (‘three persons’, for short).
The appellant had taken on lease for a period of 99 years that plot of land
from said three persons.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Affirming the view taken by the High Court, we do not find any reason to
quash the criminal proceedings. The appellant is certainly 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