The High Court of Bombay: Aurangabad Bench passed a judgement on 06 June 2023. In the case of KAILASH BABURAO MAIND Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.266 OF 2022 which was passed by a division bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE V. V. KANKANWADI and HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, the court addressed a series of petitions related to a dispute over a property located in Shirdi, Maharashtra. The judgment provides an overview of the case and examines the arguments presented by the involved parties.


The judgment begins by highlighting that all the petitions are between the same parties and stem from the same set of facts. However, the court notes that the relief sought in Writ Petition No.420 of 2023 has been withdrawn by the petitioners’ counsel due to the disinclination of the court to grant the requested relief. As a result, Writ Petition No.420 of 2023 is disposed of as withdrawn.


Remaining Matters

The judgment then focuses on three other related matters. Writ Petition No.266 of 2022 was filed by the original informant, who had lodged a FIR (First Information Report) with the Shirdi Police Station, seeking the transfer of the investigation to another agency and the addition of certain sections of the Indian Penal Code to the FIR. Criminal Application No.879 of 2023 was filed by the original informant, requesting permission to submit certain documents as evidence. Additionally, Criminal Application No.4436 of 2022 was filed by the original accused persons, seeking the quashing of the FIR lodged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.266 of 2022.


During the hearing, several advocates presented their arguments before the court. The Senior Counsel representing the original informant contended that the property in question was purchased by the petitioner and his wife. He alleged that the accused had trespassed onto their property, demolished a wall, and stolen valuable articles. The informant also raised concerns about the police’s handling of the case, alleging that they had not properly investigated the matter and were protecting the accused.

On the other hand, the Senior Counsel representing the original accused argued that the informant’s wife had sold the property to the accused and that, as the owners, they could not be accused of theft or trespassing. They further contended that the civil court had already addressed the matter and granted temporary injunctions in favour of the accused. They also highlighted a potential domestic dispute between one of the accused and a relative of the informant.


The court carefully examined the facts and arguments presented by both sides. It noted that the sale-deed clearly indicated that a portion of the property had been sold to the accused, and possession had been transferred accordingly. The court also mentioned that the informant had not provided any evidence to refute the sale-deed or support his claims regarding the remaining property.

Additionally, the court observed discrepancies regarding the informant’s wife’s involvement in the civil suit and the authenticity of her signatures on relevant documents. It considered the possibility of a false case being registered and emphasized that it would be unjust to subject the accused to a trial based on questionable grounds.


Based on the analysis of the presented facts and arguments, the court found that the sale of the property to the accused had taken place and possession had been transferred accordingly. It further noted that the informant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims. As a result, the court dismissed the writ petition filed by the informant and granted the request for quashing the FIR lodged against the accused.

The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of thoroughly examining the evidence and allegations presented in legal proceedings. It highlights the need for substantial proof to support claims and the potential consequences of filing false cases. The judgment also emphasizes the role of the court in ensuring fair and just outcomes in legal disputes.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”


Click here to view judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *