Sukri Lakshya Ravtya vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

Sukri Lakshya Ravtya vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim relief granted to the applicants on 05.09.2024 ought to be confirmed and the anticipatory bail application allowed. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering the overall circumstances, the anticipatory bail application deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed; the interim order dated 05.09.2024 stands vacated.

Ratio / Principle

Both documents on the basis of which interim relief was granted on 05.09.2024 — the agreement/Sathe Karar allegedly notarized on 26.09.2020 and the affidavit dated 21.12.2020 — are surrounded by clouds of doubt on the basis of statements recorded during investigation in October 2024.

Key takeaways

There is no record of execution of the agreement/Sathe Karar in the notary's register, which raises a serious cloud of doubt on the agreement allegedly notarized on 26.09.2020.ratio¶49
The difference between the dates recorded in the affidavit dated 21.12.2020 (stamp dated 21.12.2022) and the date (24.03.2021) referred to in the identifying notary's statement creates a serious doubt about the veracity of the affidavit.ratio¶50
The assault by a witness to the Sathe Karar on a son of the first informant after interim relief was granted shows that, during pendency of the application, efforts were being made to tamper with evidence and influence witnesses.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — dismissal; interim protection vacated. Applicants, arraigned in FIR No.0203 of 2024 (P.S. Dahanu, Dist. Palghar) under Ss. 420, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC for allegedly siphoning Rs. 82,03,320/- of the informant's land-acquisition compensation through a bank account opened by them, sought confirmation of interim relief granted on 05.09.2024, which rested on a Sathe Karar dated 26.09.2020 and an affidavit dated 21.12.2020. Investigation statements of the two notaries (05.10.2024 and 09.10.2024) revealed no register entry of execution, whatsapp-era verification without confirmation, and irreconcilable dates, casting serious doubt on both documents, which bore only the informant's thumb impression. A witness to the Sathe Karar assaulted the informant's son on 31.10.2024 (offences under Ss. 118(1), 352, 351(2), 3(4) BNS; chargesheet filed), indicating tampering with evidence and influencing of witnesses. Further offences under Ss. 467, 468, 471 IPC were added, S. 467 carrying life imprisonment. Holding a prima facie case made out, the Court (Manish Pitale, J.) dismissed the anticipatory bail application, vacated the interim order dated 05.09.2024, rejected a four-week stay prayer, and disposed of the intervention application (IA 3471/2024). Observations confined to deciding the anticipatory bail application.

911.ABA.2338.2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2338 OF 2024

Prakash Bachchu Dhodi

Harshal Prakash Dhodi ...Applicants

Versus

The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3471 OF 2024

IN

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2338 OF 2024

***

SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI

Digitally signed by SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI Date: 2025.02.05 11:17:25 +0530

Mr. K.H. Holambe Patil, a/w Mr. K.K. Holambe Patil, Mr. Vishal G. Shirsat, Mr. Digambar G. Kate and Mr. Nitin s. Murkute, for the Applicants.

Dr. Ashwini A. Takalkar, APP for Respondent.

Ms. Aishwarya Amrut Adhikari, for Applicant in IA/3471/2024.

Mr. Anandrao M. Pawar, API, Dahanu Police Station, present.

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : 04^th FEBRUARY, 2025

P. C. :

Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, learned APP for the

respondent – State and the learned counsel appearing for the intervener (first informant).

In this application, on 05^th September, 2024, this Court granted

interim relief to the applicants by recording specific reasons in paragraph No.7 of the said order.

According to the learned counsel for the applicants, in pursuance

of the directions issued in the said order, the applicants have cooperated with

Page1 of 8

Shrikant Malani

911.ABA.2338.2024.doc

the investigation and therefore, this Court may consider confirming the interim order and allowing the application.

The said prayer made on behalf of the applicants is vehemently opposed by the learned APP, as well the learned counsel appearing for the intervener.

The applicants are apprehending arrest in connection with First Information Report No.0203 of 2024, dated 08^th July, 2024, registered at Police Station Dahanu District - Palghar, for offences under Sections 420, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The informant, in her statement, has alleged that the applicants have cheated her by siphoning off huge portion of compensation amount, that was due to her for acquisition of a piece of a land belonging to her. It is alleged that the applicants made her open a bank account as the compensation amount was to be deposited in such a bank account. The ATM card, chequebook, etc. were all retained by the applicants and the compensation amount was thereafter illegally withdrawn. In fact, it is alleged that the applicants taught the informant as to how to put her signatures on the cheques and by using such tactics, huge amount of ₹ 82,03,320/- from the compensation amount deposited in the account of the informant was siphoned off by the applicants.

Page2 of 8

Shrikant Malani

911.ABA.2338.2024.doc

It is the case of the applicants that the piece of land in respect of

which the informant has raised grievance was subject matter of an agreement i.e. Sathe Karar executed between the first informant and the applicants dated 18^th September, 2020, notarized on 26^th September, 2020, whereby it was recorded that in an earlier such agreement executed in October, 2014, whereby parcels of lands were agreed by the first informant to be sold to the applicants, inadvertently the subject piece of land i.e. Survey No.111/1 was missed out. It was agreed between the parties that the said piece of land inadvertently left out in the earlier document was now specifically recorded to have been sold to the applicants. On the basis of the said document and also an affidavit purportedly executed on 21^st December, 2020, by the first informant confirming the said agreement/Sathe Karar of September, 2020, it was specified that the applicants as purchasers of the said land at Survey No.111/1 would be entitled to pick up compensation for acquisition of the said land by the State. It is submitted that in the face of such documents, the allegations made by the first informant that the applicants helped her open a bank account in which the land acquisition amount was deposited and thereafter, they siphoned away the said amounts, is palpably false and not supported by such documentary material.

In fact, this Court referred to the aforementioned

Page3 of 8

Shrikant Malani

911.ABA.2338.2024.doc

agreement/Sathe Karar and the affidavit while granting interim relief to the applicants.

Today, when the application was taken up for consideration, the learned APP referred to the investigation papers, particularly statements of two advocates, who were notary public in front of whom the aforesaid agreement/ Sathe Karar of September, 2020 and the affidavit dated 21^st December, 2020 were sworn. In fact, in respect of the affidavit dated 21^st December, 2020, it appears that the notary identified the deponents while the affidavit is supposed to have been sworn before the Executive Magistrate.

A perusal of the statement of the notary before whom the agreement/Sathe Karar was executed on 26^th September, 2020, shows that he relied upon verification of the said documents by a person known to him and also an advocate. It is specifically stated by the said notary that he simply looked at the documents and since the documents was being executed during the covid period, as was the practice at that time, verification was usually undertaken through whatsapp calls and the notary did not maintain any record in the register with regard to execution of such documents. It is crucial to note that while making such generalized statements, the aforesaid notary in his statement dated 05^th October, 2024 did not specify as to whether he had even confirmed the execution of the said document on whatsapp call with the

Page4 of 8

Shrikant Malani

911.ABA.2338.2024.doc

informant and her sons. In any case, there is no record of the execution of the said document in the Register of the Notary. This raises a serious cloud of dobut on the aforesaid agreement/Sathe Karar allegedly notarized on 26^th September, 2020.

As regards the affidavit dated 21^st December, 2020, it is purported to have been executed in the presence of the Executive Magistrate, but it also bears the signatures and stamp of the other notary public. The date on the stamp affixed purportedly before the Executive Magistrate is 21^st December, 2022 and the name of the notary public is recorded as the person, who identified the first informant and her sons, as the deponents in the affidavit. In this regard, when the statement of the said concerned notary, recorded during the course of investigation on 09^th October, 2024, is perused, it is found that he has referred to a completely different date i.e. 24^th March, 2021. It is stated that on the said date, the first informant as the deponent and her two sons were present and upon verifying their presence, the notary identified them and affixed his stamp on the said affidavit. The difference in the dates recorded in the said document i.e. the affidavit and in the statement of the aforesaid notary, also creates a serious doubt about the veracity of the aforesaid document.

Thus, both the documents, on the basis of which this Court

Page5 of 8

Shrikant Malani

911.ABA.2338.2024.doc

granted interim relief to the applicants on 05^th September, 2024, are surrounded by clouds of doubt on the basis of statements recorded subsequently during the course of investigation in October, 2024.

The specific allegation in the statement of the first informant is that the applicant No.1 took her to a particular bank and opened her bank account. He trained her in placing her signatures in the context of opening of the said account and allegedly thereafter misused her signed documents to siphon off huge amounts of compensation deposited in her account. It is to be noted that in the aforementioned two documents, which now appear to be surrounded by clouds of doubt, only the thumb impression of the first informant is affixed and there are no signatures. Apart from this, this Court finds that there is an additional reason why this Court ought not to show any further indulgence to the applicants. It is brought to the notice of this Court that one of the witnesses to the purported agreement/Sathe Karar notarized on 26^th September, 2020, assaulted one of the sons of the first informant on 31^st October, 2024, after interim relief was granted in this application on 05^th September, 2024. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that chargesheet is also filed in the said case where offences under Sections 118(1), 352, 351(2), and 3(4) of the BNS have been registered against the accused persons. There is substance in the contention raised on behalf of the intervener that the aforesaid act on the part of the one of the witnesses to the agreement / Sathe

Page6 of 8

Shrikant Malani

911.ABA.2338.2024.doc

Karar allegedly notarized on 26^th September, 2020, shows that during pendency of the present application and the interim order operating in favour of the applicants, efforts are being made to tamper with the evidence and to influence the witnesses in the instant case.

Considering the documents that have now come to the fore with the progress of the investigation, this Court finds that a prima facie case appears to have been made out against the applicants. It is an admitted position that apart from the offences for which the FIR was registered on 08^th July, 2024, further offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471of the IPC have been added. It is to be noted that the maximum punishment for offence under Section 467 of the IPC is imprisonment for life.

Considering the overall circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the application deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. The interim order dated 05^th September, 2024, stands vacated. Needless to say, the observations made in this order are limited to deciding this anticipatory bail application.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicants prays for staying this order for four weeks. In the light of the reasons recorded in this order, this Court is not inclined to grant the prayer. Hence the prayer is rejected.

Page7 of 8

Shrikant Malani

911.ABA.2338.2024.doc

In view of disposal of the anticipatory bail application,

intervention application stands disposed of.

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

Page8 of 8

Shrikant Malani