SANJAY MISHRIMAL PUNAMIYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is seeking Anticipatory Bail in connection with C.R. No. 1137 of 2021 registered with Sinnar Police Station, District- Nashik for the offences punishable under Ss. 420, 465, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 82 of the Indian Registration Act.

(2.) There are two sets of the allegations in the First Information Report (FIR) filed by Mr. Pramod Lakshman Vaman (Sub-Registrar, Class-I) of Sinner Sub-Registrar Office, Sinner, District- Nashik. The informant filed said complaint on the basis of complaint bearing Inward No. 257 of 2021 dtd. 01/10/2021 received by him along with copy of the documents bearing No. 3025 of 2007 and 6495 of 2007. After verifying the record, it is firstly alleged that at the time of registration of agreement dtd. 26/06/2007 ( document No. 3025 of 2007) with respect to Survey No. 310, the applicant had annexed a forged 7/12 extract in Uttan, Bhayndar, Thane which showed him as an agriculturist. Similarly, it is secondly alleged that at the time of registration of agreement dtd. 19/12/2007 (document No. 6495 of 2007) with respect of Survey No.477, the applicant used forged 7/12 extract. Thus, the applicant had forged the 7/12 extract in respect of Gat No. 203/24 situate at mouje Uttan, District-Thane and showed him as an agriculturist and thereby purchased the land of mouje Dharanmap, TalukaSinner, District- Nashik and thus, cheated on the Government.

(3.) Mr.Rizwan Merchant, learned Counsel for the applicant, submits that similar FIR No.I- 184 of 2016 was filed on 26/09/2016 by one Shyamsundar Radheshyam Agrawal in respect of the said land. However, after conducting enquiry into the matter, the respondents filed a "B " summary report in respect of the FIR. Even the FIR later on quashed by this Court with the consent of said Agrawal. Despite this the intervenor after a delay of 14 years again moved before the Revenue Authority apart from filing other two FIRs on the similar lines. According to learned Counsel, the present FIR is directly in contradiction to the dictum laid down in T.T. Antony vs State of Kerala and Anr. (2001)6 Supreme Court Cases 181 and Babubhai vs State of Gujarat and Ors. (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 254