HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Date: 2025.03.07 18:04:09 +0300 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3420 OF 2017 Pandurang Shripati Magadum, Occu: Service, Age:48 years, R/at: Flat No.1904, 7^th Building, Vasant Lawns, Near Jupiter Hospital, Thane (West), Pin Code: 400 606 … Petitioner V/s.

1. Rajaram Ragho Taware Age: about 51 years, Occ: Labourer, R/at: Gaware House, Near Chowdhary Chawl, Thakur Pada, Mumbai, Thane ...

2. Bhanudas Shivdas Naik Age: About 39 years, Occ: Nil, R/at: Village: Vaiswi, Taluka: Uran, Dist: Raigad. ...

3. Tansukhlal Panalal Jain Age: 45 years, Occ: Business, R/at: Uran Bazar Peth, Taluka : Uran, District :Raigad ...

4. A. A. Shaikh Age: Adult Occ: Notary R/at: D.N.S. Tower, near Thane District Court, Thane ...

5. Sanjay Patil R/at: Vashvi, Karayalay, Post: Mukkam Vashvi, Near Anganwadi VasaiUran, Raigad ...

6. Circle Officer Banker, Office at District Head Office Alibaug, District: Raigad ...

7. The State of Maharashtra At the instance of Mumbra Police Station, District: Thane. … Respondents Mr. Sandesh D. Patil i/b Mr. Prithviraj S. Gole for the Petitioner.

Mr. Vijay S. Gharat for the Respondent No.1.

Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for Respondent No.7.

CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE &

SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.

DATE : 24th FEBRUARY, 2025.

JUDGMENT :- (Per Shyam C. Chandak, J.).

. Present Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is seeking quashing and setting aside of an F.I.R. being No.I-165 of 2017 under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered with Mumbra police station qua the Petitioner. 2) Heard Mr. Patil, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. Gharat, the learned Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and Mr. Yadav, the learned APP for the Respondent-State. Perused the record. 3) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties taken up for final hearing. Mr. Gharat and the learned APP waived the notice.

4) Facts giving rise to this Petition are that :-

4.1) Respondent No.1 filed a criminal complaint bearing No.OMA No.824 of 2015 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Thane. The Respondent Nos.2 to 6 and the Petitioner were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 6 therein, for commission of the aforesaid alleged offences. (Hereinafter the parties are being referred to by their said original status i.e., Respondent No.1 as the ‘complainant’; Respondent Nos.2 to 6 as the ‘accused Nos.1 to 5 [A1 to A5]’ and the Petitioner as ‘accused No.6 [A6]’).

4.2) In the said complaint it was alleged that on 26^th February 2007, the A1-Bhanudas Shivdas Naik visited the complainant at Mumbra with a proposal to develop the land bearing Survey No.59, Hissa No.2 of village Ballondkhare, admeasuring 31 gunthas, owned and belonging to the complainant and a witness, on 50%-50% basis and induced the complainant and the witness, to execute a Power of Attorney (“PoA”, for short) in favour of the A1. Thereafter the PoA was prepared and the A1 obtained the signatures of the complainant and other co-owners thereon. However, the A1 did not give its copy to the complainant. Thereafter, the A1 asked the complainant to execute an agreement, giving an allurement of getting good price for the land, but the complainant refused to do so. Then the A1 alongwith A2 changed the contents of the PoA and, prepared a fabricated document by attaching/removing (changing) the last page of the original PoA and getting it attested by A3, a Notary, before whom the complainant and witnesses never appeared or signed. It was alleged that, the A3 intentionally omitted to properly notarize and register the said PoA. It was alleged that, thereafter, the A1 and A2 used the forged and fabricated PoA and transferred the said land of the complainant to other accused (A3). It was alleged that, the A4, being a Talathi dealing with the land record, in collusion with the agents and local crimin