SHRIKANT CHANDRASHEKHAR HIREMATH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.89 of 2022 registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Dist. Latur for the offences punishable under Ss. 420, 465, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 82 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Satej S. Jadhav for the applicant and learned APP Mr. V. S. Badakh for the respondent - State.

(3.) It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that the Assistant Sub Registrar Class-II, Latur has lodged the FIR contending that he had received a letter from Sub-Divisional Officer, Latur to register the offence under Sec. 83 of the Indian Registration Act. Similar directions are also given to him by Joint Deputy Registrar Class-I, Latur. It was in view of the fact that the authorities had noticed some scoring and changes in N.A. order of Sub-Divisional Officer dtd. 11/10/2010, which was appended at the time of registration of two documents pertaining to the sale of two plots sold by the present applicant, who is the proprietor of M/s. Hiremath Developers. It was then stated that the original order granting N.A. was in respect of 46 plots only, whereas the fabricated documents show that sanction has been given to 59 plots. The applicant says that only 11 plots have been sold up till now either it is 46 or 59 and rest are yet to be sold. Therefore, there is no question of cheating by the applicant to anybody. The applicant himself had purchased the agricultural land bearing Gut No.71 admeasuring 4 Acre 20 R for a consideration of Rs.17,11,000.00 from one Narayan Nivrutti Koli. The copy of the sale-deed has been produced. The applicant is a developer and, therefore, his employee went to Sub-Divisional Officer's office for getting the land converted from agriculture to non agriculture. At that time, it was informed by the Tehsil office that already temporary N.A. order has been given in the name of the vendor. Therefore, from the vendor, the order was tried to be taken. In fact, the vendor had never disclosed to the applicant that he had applied for conversion of his land to non agriculture and he had not handed over the said order in original form to the applicant. After demand, only a photocopy was given which was then annexed by the present applicant to the sale of those two plots. After getting noticed the obstructions and the resistance, the applicant has approached the Civil Court by filing Regular Civil Suit against the Collector as well as his vendor. Show cause notice was issued by 6th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Latur by order dtd. 22/7/2021. It is also to be noted that if such order was in existence, why the vendor had not disclosed it is a question because the said order would have fetched him good amount and he would not have sold the land by saying that it is only for agriculture purpose. Now, it appears that the vendor has change his stand and says that he had never applied. Even if for the sake of arguments we take the case as it is, yet the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. The applicant is ready to abide by the terms of the bail.