1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.616 OF 2010 Sardar Mohammad Javeed Khan ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri I.G.Durani, advocate for the applicant Shri K.S.Patil , A.P.P. for the respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 23rd March, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest under CR No. I-01/10, registered at MIDC CIDCO, Aurangabad police station, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 461, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 3 It appears that the complaint has been registered on the report lodged by the complainant, namely, Rajesh Nair, alleging that the applicant herein pretended the complainant that the title of Plot No. 4 Service Zone-N-1, CIDCO, Aurangabad is legal and valid, and therefore, the complainant purchased flat out of Plot No. 4 from the applicant wherein the applicant had constructed three storied building, but the said construction was allegedly without any permission, and therefore, on 20.11.2009 the employees of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation demolished the encroached area. It is also alleged that the applicant herein prepared false documents and cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs. 6,12,000/-, for which the complainant purchased the afore said flat from the applicant herein. It is further alleged that the applicant herein had made construction of the building making encroachment upon the road site. 4 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has obtained permission for construction from CIDCO and thereafter constructed the building. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant has received the consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- only by way of cheque from the complainant and he has not received the amount of Rs. 6,12,000/-. Moreover, learned counsel for the applicant submitted 3 that the applicant has submitted revised building plan for regularization and construction would be regularized under Section 54 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. 5 Learned APP countered the said argument vehemently and pointed out from the Commencement Certificate dated 10.8.1984 produced at Exh. ‘C’ that the permission was granted under Section 45 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 for the development work of industrial building lay out on the concerned Plot No.4; whereas the applicant herein has constructed residential building on the said Plot No.4, and therefore, said construction is implicitly in the prohibited area and thereby the applicant herein defrauded, deceived and cheated the complainant herein. Learned APP also invited my attention to the Deed of Assignment Declaration, which was collected during the course of investigation and pointed out that the said Deed was executed by the applicant herein when he has shown the development for commercial and residential one, which is contrary to the afore said Commencement Certificate dated 10.8.1984. Hence, learned APP has submitted that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary to carry out the further investigation in proper perspective. 4 6 On perusal of the investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent from the Commencement Certificate dated 10.8.1984 produced at Exh. ‘C’ that the permission was granted under Section 45 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 for the development work on the concerned Plot No.4 for industrial building lay out on the terms and conditions mentioned therein; whereas the applicant herein has constructed residential building thereon, and therefore, it is further apparent that the applicant herein has constructed the building in the prohibited area and sold Flat No.1 on ground floor in the said building to the complainant herein for consideration of Rs. 6,12,000/- and accepted the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- therefor, and the said amount is yet to be recovered. Moreover, it also appears that the Deed of Assignment executed by the applicant herein, which is registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Aurangabad at Sr. No. 1786 on 14.3.2008 discloses commercial and residential work on the concerned Plot No.4, which is apparently contrary to the Commencement Certificate dated 10.8.1984. Hence, in view of the afore said position, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the further progress in investigation in constructive 5 manner, and therefore, present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits. 7 In the result, present Criminal Application No. 616 of 2010 being sans merit stands dismissed. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/crap616.10 6 7 8 9