RADHESHYAM HUBRAJ YADAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Applicants apprehend arrest in C.R.No.215 of 2023 registered with Samta Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, for offences under Sec. 406, 420, 464, 465, 467, 468 and 471 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code .

(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant, learned APP for the State. I have perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the respective parties .

(3.) The aforesaid crime was registered pursuant to the FIR lodged by Gulabchand Sriram Singh. The facts narrated in the FIR prima facie reveal that the Applicant herein had informed the wife of the first informant that the land was available for sale at Juchendra, Naigaon (E), District Palghar. The Applicant No.1 introduced the first informant to the Applicant No.2, and thereafter they contacted co-accused Mohd. Akhtar Rafi Malik, who claimed to be the owner of the said land. The first informant entered into Memorandum of Understanding with said Mohd. Akhtar Rafi Malik, for sale of the land under old survey no. 346 (new Survey No. 387) admeasuring 20Hectares 85 gunthas of village Juchandra, Taluka Vasai, District Palghar for sale consideration of Rs.2.00Crores. It is alleged that the first informant had paid to the co-accused Mohd. Akhtar an amount of Rs.30.00 Lakhs towards earnest money. The records indicated that the co-accused Mohd. Akhtar was not the owner of the land. He had in fact no right, title or interest in the said land, and he had induced the first informant in paying him the money, by making false statement.