Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: C. C. No. 149 SW 2018 Daulat Vs. Godrej
CNR-MHMM18-007631-2018
ORDER BELOW EXH.1
1. Perused record. Heard Ld. Advocate for the applicant.
2. The present matter is filed by applicant named as Daulat Hussain
Ali Bishun, through her power of attorney Khairunisaa Ali Akbar Shaikh,
under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, for issuance of
direction to register the offence and investigate the matter.
3. It is the case of the applicant that, she is Non-Resident Indian,
residing in United Kingdom. She sought the purchase of flat for her
mother residing at Mumbai from Accused No.1, company, from its
proposed construction site at Tardeo, Mumbai. After negotiation and
fixing terms of agreement the applicant transferred half of the
consideration amount to the proposed accused company and its office
bearers i.e. proposed Accused Nos.2 to 11, through the account of
proposed Accused No.13. During this deal certain transactions also
entered between her and proposed Accused No.14.
4. After transfer of the amount through the proposed Accused No.13,
she also received acknowledgments. But she found that those
acknowledgments were not issued by proposed Accused No.1, company,
but were issued by proposed Accused No.12, company. The deal was
canceled, but till date the amount paid by her to proposed accused persons
not paid despite acknowledgment to that effect. She also alleged there
were certain financial transactions between her and proposed Accused
Nos.13 and 14. But the amounts obtained by them has not been refunded
till date, therefore, they also cheated her.
5. The documents produced show that there were negotiations going
on between applicant and proposed Accused No.1, company. These
documents shows that the amount is paid through proposed Accused
No.13, but acknowledgment receipts forwarded to the applicant were
-- 1 of 2 --
C. C. No. 149 SW 2018 Daulat Vs. Godrej
CNR-MHMM18-007631-2018
issued by proposed Accused No.12, R. R. Builders. It is not clarified in
the complaint what compelled applicant to pay the amount through
proposed Accused No.13. Further, the details pertaining to transfer of
amounts between complainant and proposed Accused No.13, and
proposed Accused No.13 and proposed Accused No.1, company, neither
pleaded in detail nor any evidence produced.
6. These details are necessary. In absence of such details its very
difficult to draw any inference of commission of offence. Therefore, I am
of the opinion that before proceeding further with any serious action some
additional preliminary inquiry is necessary.
7. The prayer sought is having serious consequences. In the above
discussed facts and circumstances I am of the opinion that rather than
allowing prayer for making further inquiry the recording of verification
statement by allowing additional documentary or any other evidence will
serve the purpose. If any need of additional evidence is felt, it can be
collected by ordering investigation under Section 202 of Code of
Criminal Procedure. Therefore, following order :
ORDER
a. The prayer for issuance of direction under Section 156(3) of Code
of Criminal Procedure, is rejected.
b. Matter is kept for verification of the complainant.
MUMBAI (KOMALSING RAJPUT)
DATE – 17.11.2021 M.M., 12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
-- 2 of 2 --