RAJDEEP PUNDALIK KUNDAIKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

(2.) A copy of the FIR is not placed on record and statement comes from the learned Counsel for the applicant that the same is not available to him and the same is not uploaded.

(3.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor to ascertain why the FIR is not uploaded. The learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently submitted that the involvement of the applicant on the basis of the Power of Attorney being executed for the purpose of effecting further transaction, is the allegation faced by him. However, he also made a categorical statement that in respect of the said cause a grievance has already been made by the complainant in the form of a Civil Suit, and an attempt was made to file an FIR to be investigated by the SIT constituted for the purpose of looking into matters of land grabbing, but the specific statement is made by him that the said FIR was refused to be registered and the SIT referred the complaint to the concerned police station. As a result of it, FIR was not persuaded, and it is only in the year 2023 that, a fresh FIR has been registered in the Margao Town Police Station.