No court relief for developers who duped flat purchasers
Accused face charges of cheating, breach of trust and forgery
The special court has refused to grant prearrest bail to partners of Ravi Developers and its two employees for allegedly duping eight investors to the tune of Rs26 crore.
The special MPID court at Thane rejected the plea observing that the accused appear to have prima facie committed the alleged offences.
Jayesh Tokershi Shah, Ketan Tokershi Shah and Sonal Jayesh Shah, who are partners in Ravi Developers, had approached the court, along with two employees, Ravindra Girdhari Rana and Machindra Bapu Samrut, seeking prearrest in a case registered against them at the Kashimira station in Thane.
Based on a complaint by one Ajendra Manoharrao Joshi, a complaint was registered for cheating, criminal breach of trust and forgery under the Indian Penal Code and sections of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment Act, 1999) [MPID Act] and the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 [MOFA].
According to the complaint, in 2020, Joshi booked a flat Gaurav Aster building in Mira Road and after signing agreement with the accused, he paid a consideration of Rs46.10 lakh. The commencement certificate (CC) dated March 30, 2019, granted by the municipal corporation, was cancelled by a letter dated June, 17, 2019. Within a week, the municipal corporation informed the deputy district registrar to inform all the officers under his jurisdiction about cancellation of CC and directed not to register any document.
Despite this, the accused cheated Joshi and entered into an agreement to sell a flat and accepted the money.
Since Joshi did not receive possession of a flat nor his money, he lodged an FIR.
Their advocate Poonam Jadhav-Hande submitted that the dispute is of civil in nature and was wrongly given the colour of a criminal case. However, she submitted that the urban land minister had directed the civic body to issue CC. She claimed that the accused had no intention to cheat anyone.
Special public prosecutor VR Chandane and advocate Kunal Jhafor intervenor opposed the plea contending that the accused had criminal antecedents. Chandane submitted that despite the municipal corporation cancelling the CC, the accused executed the agreement in favour of the purchasers and accepted the money. Also, construction was undertaken beyond the permission granted. This clearly shows intention to cheat the investors.
The SPP said that their custodial interrogation is needed for thorough investigation of the crime, including investigation regarding utilisation of money of investors.
The court noted that the accused accepted money from the investors despite the CC having been cancelled.
“Things do not stop here. Initially permission was granted for construction of 10 floors. However, illegally construction of additional floors was made by the accused.”
The judge also noted that the complainant and seven persons were defrauded to the tune of Rs3,95,61,216. In all flats are sold to 76 purchasers and therefore, the defrauded amount would come to around Rs26 crore.
The court said that the accused were rightly booked under the MPID. “It is correct that the investors made investment in purchasing flats and not in a finance scheme. However, in the agreements it is stated that if the accused fail to deliver possession in time, then they will pay monthly interest to purchasers. It would bring the case within the preview of MPID Act. As per Section 3 of MPID Act, even employees of financial institutions are liable for the offence,” it added.
“Accused appear to have prima facie committed the alleged offences. Looking at the seriousness of offence and requirement of custodial interrogation, to my mind, this is not a fit case in which benefit of anticipatory bail is to be granted,” the court noted.