Nagpur: In a land transaction dispute involving a bounced cheque, the District Court has sentenced Bhaktapralhad Shenbekar, Chairman of Swapna Sakar Developers, located at Shyam Nagar, Hudkeshwar Road, to one year of simple imprisonment under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case was filed by Girish Sakharkar, a resident of Dighori Purani Basti, Umred Road, Nagpur.
Additionally, the court directed Shenbekar to pay ₹23.53 lakh in compensation to the complainant within three months. Failure to do so will result in an additional one-year simple imprisonment.
Gold Rate
06 June 2025
Land Deal Turns into Alleged Real Estate Fraud
According to the prosecution, the developer had entered into a sale agreement with landowners Vitthal Vilaskar and Anjanabai Sakharkar for agricultural land located in Pandhurna, priced at ₹64 lakh. Out of this, ₹48 lakh was paid in cash, and ₹16 lakh was issued via post-dated cheque.
Subsequently, the developer approached complainant Girish Sakharkar with an offer to sell 0.81 hectares of the same land at ₹23 lakh per acre, totaling ₹46 lakh. With the landowners’ consent, a sale deed was executed in favor of Om Shivkrupa Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, which the complainant represented.
Cheque Bounced, Land Sold to Third Party
Later, the complainant discovered that the developer had failed to honor the terms of the agreement. Moreover, the post-dated cheque was dishonored upon presentation, and the landowners had sold the entire 1.62 hectares to third parties Sanjay Avtare and Prashant Landge.
The complainant had already accepted booking amounts from prospective buyers for the intended land transaction. Upon confrontation, the developer agreed to refund ₹26 lakh and issued two cheques—₹13 lakh dated 20 November 2011 and ₹13 lakh dated 20 March 2012—as part of a cancellation agreement.
Legal Notice Ignored, Court Convicts Builder
The first cheque was returned unpaid. The complainant then issued a legal notice to the builder, which was returned undelivered. Left with no alternative, the complainant filed a case in court.
After a prolonged hearing and examination of both sides, the court ruled in favor of the complainant, citing relevant Supreme Court precedents. The court observed that the developer had ample opportunity to clear the dues from the date of the legal notice to the conclusion of the trial but failed to do so.
The judgment stated, “Real estate fraud is on the rise. Hence, the tendency to issue cheques without genuine intent must be curbed. The accused must be penalized to serve as a deterrent.”
