ROHIDAS HARI BHOPI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants are apprehending arrest in connection with CR No.I-303/2006 registered at Kalamboli Police Station, District Raigad alleging offences of cheating and forgery. The complainant is one Haridas Shankar Joshi.

(2.) THE allegation of the complainant is that there is a plot of land in the village which vests in the State Government. Apparently, the plot was handed over to the complainant for use of villagers and thus the allegation is that it was held in trust for the entire village. The FIR proceeds to state that two years before the date of FIR, one Sainath Trimbak Bhoi who is residing in the village was approached by Bhalchandra Thakur who told said Sainath Bhoi that the balance plots (8.5 approximately) even if excluded, five more plots are available. These plots have to be released by CIDCO and if a sum of Rs.2.50 lakh per plot is paid, the said plots can be released. The complainant was paid about Rs.2.00 lakh. An agreement was executed in presence of Sainath Bhoi by the complainant. The complainant has, in his statement, said that he has signed the same. The complainant alleges that 21.5 plots available for the villagers and 8.5 plots to the complainant personally, should be untouched and only if five plots as above are available and capable of being released, then he is interested in the transaction, otherwise he would not go ahead. It is alleged that Bhalchandra Thakur agreed to all these conditions. Thereafter, four-five months elapsed and once again Bhalchandra Thakur approached the complainant. The 7/12 extracts which were produced, showed that the plot of the complainant was being subject matter of the transaction and therefore, the complainant told Bhalchandra Thakur that he is not interested in going ahead. The complainant thereafter alleges that Bhalchandra Thakur left the place. Later on, the said incident was narrated by the complainant to Sainath Bhoi and the villagers. It is alleged that on 7th April 2006 the complainant had gone for attending some ceremonies after the death of his mother. There was a meeting of the villagers for which he was supposed to be returning back. However, applicant no.2 and applicant no.1 Rohidas approached the complainant and it is alleged that they pursuaded him to proceed towards the village in their vehicle. The vehicle was not taken to the village but was taken to Navi Mumbai and Vashi. The complainant was taken to the office at Vashi and it is further alleged that he was made to sign some blank papers. Later on, the applicants dropped the complainant back to his village but threatened him not to disclose the incident. Next day i.e. on 8th April 2006 the complainant once again accompanied these applicants to a bank and later on he alleges that he signed some blank cheques and a cheque book was handed over to applicant no.1. It is alleged that this incident was narrated to the villagers and it is in these circumstances that the offences have been committed.

(3.) FURTHER, applicant no.1 is residing away from the village Jui has agreed that for a period of four weeks from today he will not enter the limits of Jui Village.