Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Forgery of document in Maruti Nivrutti Navale vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 7 September, 2012Matching Fragments
7) It is the claim of the Complainant-respondent No.2 herein that on 13.05.2008, a lease deed for a period of 35 months w.e.f. 15.04.2008 was executed and registered between the parties and it was agreed not to act upon the two MoUs. On the expiry of the lease period i.e. on 09.03.2011, the Society was to handover the possession of the said building and the land to the Trust.
8) It is the stand of the first respondent-State and the second respondent-Complainant that the present appellant made a forgery in further lease deed dated 07.03.2011 pertaining to the granting of lease for 87 years without the consent of the Complainant. It is also stated that on the same date, the appellant also made a forgery by making additions/alterations in the original draft agreement for lease which was prepared at the time of executing the MoU and got it franked. It is also their grievance that the document was notarized in the year 2008 and even in the said notarized document, forgery was committed by the appellant. It is the contention of the Complainant that on the basis of the forged document, the appellant asserted his claim over the property.
10) In the course of argument, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposed the claim of anticipatory bail and contended that custodial interrogation of the appellant is necessary because he has forged several documents and also submitted false information to the Education Department while obtaining permission for running the school. It is further pointed out that he has also produced copies of false document. It is his claim that unless custodial interrogation of the appellant is granted, it would not be possible to seize all those documents from him. In other words, according to the State, the appellant has committed not only the offence of forgery in respect of private documents but also made false representations and committed offence of cheating by giving false information to the Education Department, thus committed an offence not only against the State but also against the public in general.