Prashant Patil vs Anagha Dudhane

Thane, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) read with 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Act, 2023.

¶20

The applicants are the legal heirs of one Anil Dudhane,

¶21

Pramod S.Lakare

¶22

1/3

¶23

902-aba-2575-2025.doc

¶24

who died on 24.06.2024. According to the first informant, said Anil Dudhane by registered agreement for sale dated 29.05.2024, had agreed to sell to him five shop premises owned by him in Tiara Commercial Complex at Mazhiwada, Thane, for the consideration of Rs.4.90 Crores. According to the first informant, till the execution of agreement for sale he paid him Rs.3.25 Crore. It is alleged that after the death of Anil Dudhane, he contacted the applicants and told them to complete the transaction by accepting remaining consideration. It is alleged that the applicants at that time told him that the said shop premises are mortgaged with the Axis Bank against the loan availed by Anil Dudhane. On the request of the applicants, he paid them further amount of Rs. 1,36.02,000/- to enable them to clear the loan. After paying the said amount, applicants showed him one letter that they have cleared the loan and one demand draft. It is alleged that both the documents were forged.

¶25

The learned counsel for the applicants submits that first informant himself had prepared the said forged documents to convert civil dispute into the criminal case. It is submitted that the first informant was aware that the shop premises were mortgaged

¶26

Pramod S.Lakare

¶27

2/3

¶28

902-aba-2575-2025.doc

¶29

with the Axis bank. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are ready to refund Rs.1.36,02,000/- subject to the first informant executing cancellation of conveyance deed.

¶30

On the other hand, the learned APP for the respondentState and the learned counsel for the respondent-first informant submit that the applicants are involved in the serious crime of forgery. The learned APP submits that the applicants were called for the purpose of investigation. It is submitted that they handed over the forged documents to the Investigation Officer also.

¶31

The fact that the first informant had paid about Rs.4.62 Crore is not in dispute. At this stage, I am not inclined to accept the submission that the forged documents were prepared by the first informant himself, as, according to the Investigation Officer, the applicants submitted the forged documents to him when they were called for the purpose of investigation. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicants on anticipatory bail. The application is rejected.

¶32

[N.R.BORKAR, J.]

¶33

Pramod S.Lakare

¶34

3/3

Prashant Patil v. Anagha Dudhane

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Patil v. Anagha Dudhane

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babaji Ramchandra Kale vs Shantaram Mahadu Deshmukh

Manjunath Vittal Jannu vs Divya Manjunath Jannu and Anr.

Raju Balasaheb Kamble vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manish Vinod Ringasia vs Aarti Manish Ringasia Alias Aarti Bimal Sharma

Vinod Vijay Ghodvinde vs Harshali Vinod Ghodvinde

Mayuresh Mukund Kulkarni vs Nilima Mayuresh Kulkarni