The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner, an advocate, was implicated in a conspiracy to grab government land belonging to the Government I.T.I., Parbhani. The court found sufficient material to frame charges under Sections 420, 425, 468, 471, 120-B r/w Section 34 of the IPC. It also emphasized that mutation entries in revenue records do not confer ownership.

1. Case Introduction

• Parties Involved: Sujit s/o Suhasrao Deshmukh (Petitioner) vs. State of Maharashtra (Respondent).
• Nature of Petition: Criminal writ petition challenging rejection of discharge applications in a conspiracy case concerning fraudulent land transactions.

2. Background of the Dispute

• Land Details: Survey No. 574, originally owned by Mr. Mujahiddin Mohioddin Ahmad, was sold to the Municipal Council, Parbhani, in 1966. Subsequently, it was transferred to the Government I.T.I.
• Allegations: Petitioner and co-accused manipulated mutation entries and executed fraudulent sale deeds to claim ownership.

3. Role of the Petitioner

• Profession: Advocate, alleged to have aided the conspiracy.
• Acts of Collusion: Filed civil suits and executed sale deeds despite knowledge of prior ownership by the Government I.T.I.

4. Legal Proceedings

• Discharge Rejection: Lower courts denied discharge applications based on prima facie evidence of conspiracy and forgery.
• High Court Observations: Affirmed lower court decisions, noting the petitioner’s involvement and professional misconduct.

5. Legal Principles Discussed

• Sections Invoked: IPC Sections 420 (cheating), 425 (mischief), 468 (forgery for cheating), 471 (using forged documents), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), and Cr.P.C. Sections 239, 482.
• Key Findings:
  • Mutation entries do not confer title.
  • Strong suspicion suffices for framing charges.

6. Conclusion and Dismissal

• Verdict: Petition dismissed.
• Additional Remarks: Court highlighted professional misconduct and refused interim relief for the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi:

The judgment reinforces that mutation entries in revenue records lack evidentiary value in proving ownership. The court also clarified that professional conduct must align with legal and ethical standards, particularly when dealing with known government property.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. IPC Sections:
   • 420: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
   • 425: Mischief causing damage or loss.
   • 468: Forgery for cheating.
   • 471: Using as genuine a forged document.
   • 120-B: Criminal conspiracy.
2. Cr.P.C.:
   • Section 239: Discharge of accused if charges are groundless.
   • Section 482: Inherent powers of the High Court for quashing proceedings.

Subjects:

Criminal Law, Land Fraud, Professional Misconduct.
Land Disputes, Forgery, Cheating, Mutation Entries, High Court Rulings, Legal Ethics.