IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 154 OF 2008 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 154 OF 2008 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 154 OF 2008 Shri Vitthaldas B. Sikchi.... Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent. Mr. J.Shekhar i/b J.Shekhar & Co. for the petitioner Mrs. M.H.Mhatre APP for State. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 27TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED; 27TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED; 27TH FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. The present petitioner is being prosecuted for the offence under sections 420, 406 read with 34 of IPC. The petitioner filed discharge application and the same came to be rejected. Aggreived by the said order, a revision was carried before the Sessions Judge and the dismissal of the revision has given raise to the filing of this petition. The revisional court has found that the petitioner/accused and the deceased husband of the complainant by name Shivaji had was entered into a MOU on 19-2-1998 in regard to the agricultural land admeasuring to the extent of 45 acres. The property was in possession of the defence. Under the MOU the petitioner had assured that he would get back the possession of the land by releasing the same from the acquisition and would transfer it in favour of the accused. By so representing, the accused was induced to part with a sum of Rs. 81 lakhs. It was also agreed that if the contract does not materialise the amount would be refunded by the petitioner to the deceased Shivaji. Though the transaction was not completed within the period prescribed the said sum of Rs. 81 lakhs was also not refunded. On these faacts the revisional court has found that the order passed by the Magistrate, rejecting the application for discharge is legal and proper. 2. Perused the order passed by the revisional court so also the order passed by the Magistrate. The same does not call for any interference. In the result, the writ petition is summarily dismissed. ....