Court rejects realtor Aniruddha Seolekar’s discharge plea in forgery case

The order, delivered on February 12, 2026, rejects Seolekar’s challenge to the trial court’s finding that sufficient prima facie evidence exists to frame charges concerning the alleged manipulation of society records

The Court of Additional Sessions Judge A.I. Perampalli in Pune has dismissed a criminal revision application filed by 64-year-old real estate developer Aniruddha Seolekar, upholding a lower court’s decision to proceed with trial in an alleged forgery and cheating case related to the Florida Estate B Cooperative Housing Society in Mundhwa.

The dispute centres on ownership and development rights over several survey numbers in Mundhwa, owned by the Florida Estate B Cooperative Housing Society. (HT)

The order, delivered on February 12, 2026, rejects Seolekar’s challenge to the trial court’s finding that sufficient prima facie evidence exists to frame charges concerning the alleged manipulation of society records and unauthorised sub-division of property.

The dispute centres on ownership and development rights over several survey numbers in Mundhwa, owned by the Florida Estate B Cooperative Housing Society.

Court records state that the society comprises 13 members. Initially, these members assigned development rights to Seolekar’s firm. Subsequently, seven additional members also transferred their rights to him. Following these agreements, Seolekar undertook construction on the land and sold flats in accordance with sanctioned plans.

The case arises from a complaint filed by the society through its chairman, Lt Col (Retd) Mukund Thipse. The society alleged that Seolekar manipulated its records to create a separate entity, “Florida Estate C Society,” using a forged letterhead dated January 1, 2008. It further alleged that he represented himself as an authorised signatory before the Tahsildar to facilitate unauthorised sub-division of the property and misappropriation of amenity spaces.

Seolekar’s legal team argued that the dispute was civil in nature and that the evidence did not establish a prima facie criminal case. They contended that the trial court’s refusal to discharge him was “bad in law,” amounted to an abuse of process, and reflected a failure to properly appreciate the evidence.

However, the Sessions Court noted that the signature on the disputed letterhead used in the sub-division application appeared to match the signature on Seolekar’s vakalatnama filed in court.

Judge Perampalli held that at the stage of framing charges, the court must primarily consider the material and documents submitted by the complainant.

Seolekar will continue to face charges under Indian Penal Code sections 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating) and 471 (using a forged document as genuine).