Pune Sessions Court Rejects Discharge Plea of Builder Seolekar in Florida Estate Forgery Case

Pune, 17th February 2026: In a major relief for the residents of Florida Estate B Cooperative Housing Society in Mundhwa, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, has dismissed the criminal revision application filed by developer Aniruddha Seolekar (alias Anil Uttam Seolekar). The court’s ruling paves the way for the trial to proceed against the developer for alleged forgery and fabrication of documents.

The judgment, pronounced on February 12, 2026, by Additional Sessions Judge A. I. Perampalli, upheld the earlier order of the lower court which had rejected the developer’s application for discharge from the case.

The dispute dates back to 2010 (RCC No. 142/2010), when Florida Estate B CHS, represented by its Chairman Lt. Col. (Retd) Mukund Thipse, filed a case against Seolekar. The society alleged that the developer had manipulated records to sub-divide the property.

According to the prosecution, Seolekar allegedly created a new entity named “Florida Estate C” Cooperative Housing Society by forging documents. It was alleged that he used the letterhead of “Florida Estate B” society without authorization to apply for this sub-division at the Tahsildar’s office, with the intent to misappropriate amenity space and cause wrongful loss to the original society.

The core of the dispute revolves around a letter dated January 1, 2008 (Exhibit 34). The complainant alleged that this letter, addressed to the Tahsildar, was written on the society’s letterhead but was actually prepared and signed by the accused without any authority from the society office bearers.

The police had issued process against Seolekar under Sections 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating) and 471 (Using as genuine a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code.

Seolekar had challenged the lower court’s order dated May 2, 2024, which refused to discharge him from the case. His counsel argued that the documents were not proved and that the dispute was civil in nature.

However, rejecting these arguments, Judge Perampalli noted that there is sufficient prima facie evidence to proceed with the trial. The court observed that the signature on the disputed letter (Exh. 34) matched the signature of the accused on his Vakalatnama. The Judge remarked that the accused had no right to file an application for the sub-division of the society using the society’s letterhead.

“The order is legal and proper,” the court stated while dismissing Revision Application No. 19/2025.