Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. The applicant, apprehending arrest, moved an application under Section 483 before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Court rejected the application by order dated 29 September 2025. The applicant has therefore approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail.

11. Mr. Desai, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant, submitted that the transactions referred to in the FIR pertain to the period between 2003 and 2011. All these transactions were registered. They were acted upon. They were confirmed in several civil proceedings. The FIR has been filed in 2025, almost 12 to 15 years later, and even after the informant's alleged adoptive mother passed away in 2021. He submitted that the FIR is an attempt to unsettle a chain of title which stood concluded long ago and which was acknowledged by the complainant's own predecessor in two civil suits. He submitted that all legal representatives executed registered agreement for sale and a registered power of attorney in 2003. Full consideration was paid. A registered conveyance was executed in 2008. A registered rectification deed followed in 2011. Permission under Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was duly granted by the Sub Divisional Officer. In 2014, Suit No. 234 of 2012 was settled, which related to these very instruments. In 2023, multiple confirming deeds were executed. Therefore, according to him, the informant cannot now plead ignorance or allege fraud regarding documents executed in aba2633-2025.doc 2008 and 2011.

13. He submitted that the plea that the heirs were unaware of the alleged forgery cannot stand. The heirs were represented by advocates in all proceedings. Most of them have executed registered confirming deeds thereafter.

14. Referring to the 7/12 extract annexed to the conveyance, he submitted that the mistake stood corrected by a registered rectification deed in 2011. The informant claims to be the adopted son of deceased Krishnabai. The informant was himself a witness to the power of attorney and the agreement for sale of 2003. He submitted that deceased Krishnabai was fully aware of the execution of these documents and the subsequent conveyance and rectification deed. He submitted that this fact is recorded in proceedings of Special Civil Suit No. 286 of 2017.

34. The approach, therefore, has to be balanced and reasonable. The court must protect the investigation and ensure that it proceeds properly. At the same time it must safeguard personal liberty and ensure that a person is not arrested merely because old aba2633-2025.doc and stale allegations have been levelled after many years.

35. The record placed before the Court reveals that the chain of transactions now questioned by the prosecution is not of recent origin. The earliest documents date back to the year 2003. The conveyance deed was executed on 14 November 2008. A rectification deed followed on 15 September 2011. Both are registered instruments. Their execution, registration and continued subsistence on public record for more than a decade are matters of significance. They show that the transactions were neither concealed nor kept away from public scrutiny. They stood open to examination by any person claiming an interest in the property.

52. Applying the principle to the present case, the Court must examine whether the factual foundation here stands on the same footing. The record before me shows that the instruments complained of are not hidden documents. The conveyance deed of 2008 and rectification deed of 2011 are registered instruments. They have been part of the public domain for years. The permission under Section 43 of the tenant law was granted after an inquiry by the Sub Divisional Officer. Civil suits were instituted by branches of the same family. Settlements were recorded. Confirming deeds were executed. These events show that the transactions were neither clandestine nor inaccessible to the complainant's predecessors.