SANJAY PADMAKAR DARANDALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these applications filed under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are being decided by this common order, since the applicants therein claimed to have apprehension of being arrested in connection with one and the same crime i.e. Crime No.0030 of 2022, registered with Sonai Police Station, Sonai, Taluka Newasa, District Ahmednagar for offence punishable under Ss. 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) First Information Report (FIR) has been lodged on 24/1/2022. It is alleged therein that the informant was the resident of village Sonai, Taluka Newasa, District Ahmednagar. His son and daughter-in-law are in abroad. Land bearing Gut No.150, 01 Hectare 43 Are, stands in the name of son and daughter-in-law of the informant. Both of them had executed a power of attorney in favour of the informant in connection with the land Gut No.150. It is further averred that the informant sold the land Gut No.150 to Advocates Prafulla Ramrao Jadhav and Bharat Ramrao Jadhav (brothers) and Padma Ramrao Jadhav in March 2020. Since then, Jadhavs have been in possession of the land. The informant learnt that theft of standing sugarcane in said land was committed and therefore, crime was registered. The informant was told by Advocate Bharat Jadhav that the applicant Sanjay (ABA No.472/2022) filed a notarised document in a proceeding, for anticipatory bail, pending before the High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. A copy of the said document was sent to the informant. On having inspected the said document, the informant realised the same to have been forged one. He, therefore, lodged the FIR against applicant Sanjay and others two who are shown to have attested the said document. One of them is the applicant in ABA No.446 of 2022. The crime therefore came to be registered against them.

(3.) Heard. Shri K. N. Shermale, learned Advocate would submit that the informant is a money lender. The land Gut No.150 originally belonged to applicant Sanjay. It was ostensibly sold to the informant with an implied condition, to return it back to Sanjay on payment of amount received as a hand loan. Even pursuant to the said transaction, the informant returned major portion of the land by executing a sale-deed on accepting Rs.51,00,000.00 (Rupees Fifty One Lakh). The applicant himself had realised the notarised document in question to have been forged by the informant himself and he, therefore, approached the Superintendent of Police complaining the same. According to the learned Advocate, the applicant Sanjay and his family members have never lost possession over the land in Gut No.150 since it was a transaction of mortgage. Under the alleged forged document, the applicant Sanjay is shown to have parted with a sum of Rs.15,00,000.00 (Rupees Fifteen Lakh). As such, it is the applicant Sanjay who is the victim of the crime in question. According to him, in a crime registered for theft of sugarcane in land Gut No.150, the Hon'ble Apex Court has granted protection to the accused persons (family members of Sanjay). It is also brought to the notice of this Court that applicant Sanjay himself has filed application against the informant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Newasa, under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The prayer therein is to register a crime against the informant himself for having forged the document in question. It is also the case of the applicant Sanjay that due to harassment by the informant, Sanjay had consumed poison to commit suicide. Fortunately, he has been survived. According to the learned Advocate, the offence pertains to a document. The document is very much available with the Investigating Officer. Custodial interrogation of applicant Sanjay is therefore not warranted. He, therefore, urged for grant of the application.