Prashant S/O Laxminarayan Nakade v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Home Dep. Mantralaya Mumbai 32 And 5 Others

2024:BHC-NAG:4986-DB 1 907.cri.wp.373.2024

IN THE HIGH

COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.373 OF 2024 Prashant s/o Lakshminarayan Nakade ..vs..

State of Maharashtra and ors.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Neeraj S. Khandewale, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Udeshi, Addl.P.P. for the State.

CORAM:

VINAY JOSHI AND MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI , J J.

DATED :

25/04/2024.

Heard.

2.

It is the petitioner's contention that respondent no.4 is an owner of piece of land, which he has agreed to sell to the petitioner in consideration of Rs.27.20 lakhs. Accordingly, the notarized agreement dated 22.02.2023 has been executed between the parties. On such a background, it is the applicant's grievance that his seller i.e. respondent no.4 Satish Chaudhary had purchased said plot from respondent no.5 Pushpa Sakharkar and one suit was pending in between Pusha Sakharkar and one Sachin to whom Pushpa allegedly entered into an agreement.

3.

It is the petitioner's contention that his seller Satish was having knowledge about the pendency of suit of his earstwhile owner with prospective buyer and thus, it is an offence of cheating. we do not find any element to constitute the offence of cheating.

4.

The petition stands dismissed. No costs.

(MRS.

VRUSHALI V. JOSHI , J.

) (VINAY JOSHI, J.) Trupti